Coordination in Human and Primate Groups

Coordination in Human and Primate Groups . Margarete Boos Michaela Kolbe Peter M. Kappeler Thomas Ellwart l l l ...

Author: Margarete Boos | Michaela Kolbe | Peter M. Kappeler | Thomas Ellwart

40 downloads 3857 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Coordination in Human and Primate Groups

.

Margarete Boos Michaela Kolbe Peter M. Kappeler Thomas Ellwart l

l

l

Editors

Coordination in Human and Primate Groups

Editors Prof. Dr. Margarete Boos Georg-Elias-Mu¨ller-Institute of Psychology Georg-August-University Go¨ttingen Goßlerstrasse 14 37075 Go¨ttingen Germany [email protected] Prof. Peter M. Kappeler Department of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology German Primate Center Kellnerweg 6 37077 Go¨ttingen Germany [email protected]

Dr. Michaela Kolbe Department of Management Technology, and Economics Organisation, Work, Technology Group ETH Zu¨rich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14 8032 Zu¨rich, Switzerland [email protected] Prof. Dr. Thomas Ellwart University of Trier Department of Economic Psychology D-54286 Trier Germany [email protected]

ISBN 978-3-642-15354-9 e-ISBN 978-3-642-15355-6 DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15355-6 Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover photo: Composition of Primates (upper photo) #Peter M. Kappeler and humans (lower photo) #Rainer Sturm / Pixelio (www.pixelio.de) Cover design: deblik, Berlin Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

All members of our species are faced with cooperative decision making and group coordination on a daily basis. By definition, group coordination involves the coordination and reconciliation of potentially conflicting interests of individuals within a group to produce a joint solution. It is therefore cumbersome, timeconsuming, and politically problematic. As psychologists, we are learning from cooperative projects with our primatologist colleagues (such as this book) that this weighing of the costs and benefits of group coordination defines the very causal roots of primate group living. Primatological studies reveal that cooperation and coordination are also involved in daily decisions of non-human primate groups, providing an important comparative perspective that is leading to a better understanding of general patterns and mechanisms of group coordination as well as aspects that are unique to humans. We therefore invite everyone faced with decision making and the challenges that group coordination poses – from family to lecture hall – to explore the essays in this book. Even sole proprietors of entrepreneurial start-ups who regularly make decisions on their own could learn a thing or two from this book about the survival benefits of making those decisions in a cooperative setting instead. Together, these chapters provide a refreshingly comparative perspective on group coordination within both human and non-human primate groups and reveal a stunning diversity of behavioural mechanisms with surprising outcomes. Our goal is to contrast concepts and methods of coordination, which, of course, reveal many differences but also show some interesting similarities. For example, where humans would expect the most dominant, physically powerful male of a non-human primate group to make all decisions, we find that in many cases the needs of the younger and physically vulnerable group members influence pivotal decisions affecting the entire group as well. The survival imperatives underlying successful primate group coordination at the group level make the metaphorical applications to human group coordination boundless and eye-opening. One constant among humans and non-human primate groups appears axiomatic: No one member – no matter how intelligent or talented or multi-faceted – can approach successful group interactions from all perspectives and dispose of all data required for the coordination of the entire group. v

vi

Preface

The book is organized much like any approach to group coordination would be. Contributions to Part I deal with theoretical approaches, defining the task of group coordination. Chapters in Part II explore scientific concepts and methods of group coordination, offering state-of-the-art data on the subject from different psychological perspectives. Part III presents four aspects on coordination in non-human primate groups that are of great interest for understanding human coordination. The authors provide insights into mechanisms of primate group movement, introduce a variety of communicative signals in different modalities, impress psychologists with rudimentary forms of shared intentionality in great apes groups, and discuss the effects of heterogeneity in primate group composition. At first glance, the reader might think that coordination in non-human primate groups is lacking the essential and most salient aspects of human coordination such as verbal communication and written plans. However, these contributions reveal that there are indeed some important similarities that make this comparison valuable for research and theory. As is always the case with studies on group coordination, each section approaches its particular focus with the assumption that no research project is ever complete and therefore outlines questions and ideas ripe for future research. Because this is one of the most dynamic areas of inter-disciplinary research, we do not claim that this volume provides an exhaustive summary. However, most readers open to an interdisciplinary approach will in all likelihood encounter perspectives that they have never contemplated before. Faced with compiling a book on as ambitious a subject as coordination and decision making by human and non-human primates, clearly the best way, and frankly the only way, to present the science on this topic was to do so as a group. This collaborative endeavour allowed us to experience some of the rather practical group coordination challenges firsthand (e.g. choosing contributors, working with and reconciling different ideas of how to edit a book together, coordinating the timing and input of the contributions themselves, etc.). But without a doubt, the richness of its final form benefits from these challenges – a testimony to group coordination itself. This book is a direct outcome of interdisciplinary cooperation made possible by the Courant Research Centre “Evolution of Social Behavior” at the University of Go¨ttingen in Germany. This centre was founded in 2008 with DFG (German Research Foundation) funding, and its constituent members study the social behaviour of human and non-human primates from an evolutionary perspective. The book’s contributors were largely chosen among the participants of a workshop on implicit and explicit coordination in Go¨ttingen in 2006 that proved pivotal to the establishment of this Courant Research Centre. We would therefore like to express our gratitude to the DFG and the University of Go¨ttingen (which funded the workshop) for ultimately making the publication of this book possible. We would also like to thank the contributing authors, who carved time out of their already over-burdened schedule to compose works that reflect the diversity and creative thought that their fields of research demand. And we extend special thanks to Anette Lindqvist at Springer for her enduring patience as our editor, Margarita Neff-Heinrich for her

Preface

vii

outstanding English-for-the-sciences proofreading, Christine John and Dennis Ergezinger for their diligence in dealing with matters of layout and graphics, and a warm “thank you” to the extensive support staff too numerous to mention; without their help, an endeavour such as this would have been impossible. Go¨ttingen, Germany Zurich, Switzerland Trier, Germany November 2010

Margarete Boos and Peter M. Kappeler Michaela Kolbe Thomas Ellwart

.

Contents

Part I

Theoretical Approaches to Group Coordination

1

Coordination in Human and Non-human Primate Groups: Why Compare and How? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Margarete Boos, Michaela Kolbe, and Peter M. Kappeler

2

An Inclusive Model of Group Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Margarete Boos, Michaela Kolbe, and Micha Strack

3

Coordination of Group Movements in Non-human Primates . . . . . . . . 37 Claudia Fichtel, Lennart Pyritz, and Peter M. Kappeler

4

Dimensions of Group Coordination: Applicability Test of the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Micha Strack, Michaela Kolbe, and Margarete Boos

5

The Role of Coordination in Preventing Harm in Healthcare Groups: Research Examples from Anaesthesia and an Integrated Model of Coordination for Action Teams in Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Michaela Kolbe, Michael Burtscher, Tanja Manser, Barbara Ku¨nzle, and Gudela Grote

6

Developing Observational Categories for Group Process Research Based on Task and Coordination Requirement Analysis: Examples from Research on Medical Emergency-Driven Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Franziska Tschan, Norbert K. Semmer, Maria Vetterli, Andrea Gurtner, Sabina Hunziker, and Stephan U. Marsch

ix

x

Contents

Part II

Assessing Coordination in Human Groups – Concepts and Methods

7

Assessing Coordination in Human Groups: Concepts and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Thomas Ellwart

8

Assessing Team Coordination Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Kristina Lauche

9

Measurement of Team Knowledge in the Field: Methodological Advantages and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Thomas Ellwart, Torsten Biemann, and Oliver Rack

10

An Observation-Based Method for Measuring the Sharedness of Mental Models in Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Petra Badke-Schaub, Andre Neumann, and Kristina Lauche

11

Effective Coordination in Human Group Decision Making: MICRO-CO: A Micro-analytical Taxonomy for Analysing Explicit Coordination Mechanisms in Decision-Making Groups . . . 199 Michaela Kolbe, Micha Strack, Alexandra Stein, and Margarete Boos

Part III

Primatological Approaches to the Conceptualisation and Measurement of Group Coordination

12

Primatological Approaches to the Study of Group Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Peter M. Kappeler

13

Communicative and Cognitive Underpinnings of Animal Group Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Julia Fischer and Dietmar Zinner

14

Communicative Cues Among and Between Human and Non-human Primates: Attending to Specificity in Triadic Gestural Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Juliane Kaminski

15

Coordination in Primate Mixed-Species Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Eckhard W. Heymann

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Contributors

Petra Badke-Schaub Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands, [email protected] Torsten Biemann Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany, [email protected] Margarete Boos Georg-Elias-Mu¨ller-Institute of Psychology, Georg-AugustUniversity Go¨ttingen, Goßlerstrasse 14, 37075 Go¨ttingen, Germany, mboos @uni-goettingen.de Michael Burtscher Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Zu¨rich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Zu¨rich, Switzerland, [email protected] Thomas Ellwart University of Trier, Department of Economic Psychology, D-54286 Trier, Germany, [email protected] Claudia Fichtel Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany, [email protected] Julia Fischer Cognitive Ethology, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany, [email protected] Gudela Grote Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Zu¨rich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Zu¨rich, Switzerland, [email protected]

xi

xii

Contributors

Andrea Gurtner Applied University of Berne, Berner Fachhochschule, Fachbereich Wirtschaft und Verwaltung, Morgartenstrasse 2c, 3014 Bern, Switzerland, [email protected] Eckhard W. Heymann Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany, [email protected] Sabina Hunziker Departement fu¨r Innere Medizin, University Hospital of Basel, Abteilung fu¨r Intensivmedizin, Kantonsspital, 4031 Basel, Switzerland Juliane Kaminski Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany, [email protected] Peter M. Kappeler Department of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany, [email protected] Michaela Kolbe Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Zu¨rich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Zu¨rich, Switzerland, [email protected] Barbara Ku¨nzle Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Zu¨rich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Zu¨rich, Switzerland, [email protected] Kristina Lauche Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 3, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands, [email protected] Tanja Manser Industrial Psychology Research Centre, School of Psychology, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, G32 William Guild Building, Aberdeen AB24 2UB UK, [email protected] Stephan U. Marsch Departement fu¨r Innere Medizin, University Hospital of Basel, Abteilung fu¨r Intensivmedizin, Kantonsspital, 4031 Basel, Switzerland, [email protected] Andre Neumann Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands, a.neumann@ tudelft.nl Lennart Pyritz Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany, [email protected]

Contributors

xiii

Oliver Rack School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Riggenbachstrasse 16, 4600 Olten, Switzerland, [email protected] Norbert K. Semmer University of Berne, Institute of Psychology, Muesmattstrasse 45, 3000 Bern 9, Switzerland, [email protected] Alexandra Stein Grohgasse 5-7/35, 1050 Vienna, Austria, [email protected] Micha Strack Georg-Elias-Mu¨ller-Institute of Psychology, Georg-AugustUniversity Go¨ttingen, Goßlerstrasse 14, 37075 Go¨ttingen, Germany, mstrack@ uni-goettingen.de Franziska Tschan University of Neuchaˆtel, Institut de Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, Rue Emile Argand 11, 2000 Neuchaˆtel, Switzerland, [email protected] Maria Vetterli University of Neuchaˆtel, Institut de Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, Rue Emile Argand 11, 2000 Neuchaˆtel, Switzerland, maria. [email protected] Dietmar Zinner Cognitive Ethology, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany, [email protected]

.

Part I

Theoretical Approaches to Group Coordination

.

Chapter 1

Coordination in Human and Non-human Primate Groups: Why Compare and How? Margarete Boos, Michaela Kolbe, and Peter M. Kappeler

Abstract This chapter integrates the six chapters in Part I of this book. They offer different treatments of the theoretical aspects of small group coordination, thereby providing a framework for how coordination behaviour can be studied from the perspectives of social psychology and primatology. Although we have a good working definition of group coordination and have scientifically established that groups of all primates, including humans, are adapted to improve survival, we are less informed about the behaviours that keep groups together and resolve conflicts. Chapter 2 helps to narrow this gap by integrating contemporary thought on coordination and offering an inclusive model for investigators to use in their analysis of both human and non-human primate groups. Chapter 3 informs us about how and why group movements of non-human primates offer a particularly rich arena with which to study primate group coordination. Chapter 4 presents a thorough analysis of a classic tool in group coordination theory (Wittenbaum and colleagues’ Coordination Mechanism Circumplex) and how it can be used to understand behaviours of both an observable and tacit nature that occur before and during the actual coordination task. Chapter 5 takes another perspective – that of high-dynamic anaesthesia teams – to show how theories of coordination can be applied to prevent harm in the operating room. The final chapter offers an outline of how the analysis of the group

M. Boos (*) Georg-Elias-M€uller-Institute of Psychology, Georg-August-University G€ottingen, Goßlerstrasse 14, 37075 G€ottingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] M. Kolbe Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Z€urich, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Z€ urich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] P.M. Kappeler Department of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 G€ottingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

M. Boos et al. (eds.), Coordination in Human and Primate Groups, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15355-6_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

3

4

M. Boos et al.

task itself can be used to develop categories of group processes and performance, adapting hierarchical task analysis tool for in-depth structural analysis. Animals as well as humans have inherent tendencies toward group behaviour, a trait considered to be one of the major evolutionary transitions. Group living provides advantages such as protection, efficient foraging, and synergy in task performance (Voland 2000; West 2004). However, living in any kind of group requires coordination of behaviour and/or meanings and/or goals (Arrow et al. 2000; Kappeler 2006; Steiner 1972; Stroebe and Frey 1982). We define group coordination among human and non-human primates as the goal-dependent management of interdependencies by means of hierarchically and sequentially regulated action in order to achieve a common goal. Group coordination can be analysed regarding its functions (e.g. contribution to a group decision or to a joint movement), its processes (e.g. democratic or hierarchical), its mechanisms (e.g. explicit or implicit), and its entities (e.g. level of behaviour, meaning, or goal; Arrow et al. 2000; Chaps. 2 and 7). The core assumption of the socialevolutionary perspective on small groups is that group structure and interaction reflect evolutionary forces that have shaped social behaviours over thousands of years (Poole et al. 2004). Within this evolutionary approach, the contributions to this book and others in the literature of social psychology, primatology, and anthropology demonstrate how social coordination behaviour can be studied from the perspectives of social psychology and primatology. This in turn allows us to provide answers to the anthropological questions of how mechanisms of group coordination have evolved and whether there are unique characteristics of so-called human nature. This evolutionary approach includes a selectionist and adaptionist framework (Daly and Wilson 1999). The adaptive reasons why most animals live in stable social groups are well studied (Conradt and Roper 2003; Kerth 2010), but the behavioural mechanisms used to maintain group cohesion and to solve conflicts of interest are only beginning to be explored. We will explain this research gap using the example of group cohesion. For most primate species, the maintenance of group cohesion is of primary importance for ecological reasons. Maintaining group cohesion is not a trivial problem because groups can be large and can also contain individuals with valid diverging individual interests. Perhaps more so than any other animal species, humans exhibit behavioural mechanisms that promote and facilitate cohesion at the group level. Social psychological research is concerned with how groups obtain this aforementioned cohesion (Baron and Kerr 2003; Festinger 1957; Forsyth 2006; Williams and Harkins 2003). With some exceptions, of course, in contrast to primatological research that attempts to identify behaviours that lead to cohesion in a group, the social psychological concept is far less behavioural oriented and is based instead on affective states, cognition, or common symbols that promote cohesion. For example, a widely accepted conceptualisation of group cohesion in social psychology holds that cohesiveness can be based on interpersonal liking, prestige of the group, and/or commitment to a common goal (Hogg and Abrams 1989). Thus, comparative studies of human and non-human primate groups could

1 Coordination in Human and Non-human Primate Groups: Why Compare and How?

5

give way to the inclusion of more behavioural elements in psychological concepts of group cohesion, and at the same time test to what extent affective states, cognition, or common symbols giving rise to cohesion in human groups can also be identified among non-human primates. As established above, evolution does not require groups only to maintain cohesion, but also to act collectively in order to achieve common goals. Therefore, mechanisms of making collective decisions have to be formulated. Studying the behavioural processes that underlie decisions on the group level such as where and when to forage or rest is therefore a prime example for studies of functional communication and decision processes (Conradt and List 2009; see also Chaps. 12, 13, and 15). Primatology is becoming increasingly interested in how primate groups coordinate their activities by making collective behavioural decisions (Kappeler 2006). As in humans, vocal communication in non-human primates appears to play an important role in mediating decisions at the group level (Trillmich et al. 2004; see also Chaps. 3 and 13). For instance, when separated from conspecifics, many primates give loud calls that can be heard over large distances (Fischer et al. 2001). These vocalisations seem to function as ‘contact calls’ that are exchanged between widely separated individuals or subgroups (Rendall et al. 1999; see also Chap. 15). Despite their occurrence in specific contexts, there is some doubt about whether contact calls have evolved specifically to maintain contact between separated individuals. Although listeners can use the calls to maintain contact with signallers, signallers may not call with the intent to inform others. In the case of baboons, however, it seems clear that individuals give contact barks because they have lost the sight of others and are feeling anxious (Fischer et al. 2001). Although there exist such studies of decision making in non-human primate groups, and many coordination mechanisms such as vocalisation and gesture have been identified (see, e.g. Chap. 13), the explicit and implicit signals and rules of communal decision making remain rather poorly understood. We do know, however, that human group decision making is a widespread phenomenon within families as well as within colleague groups, committees, juries, etc. (Boos 1996). Group decision making has been extensively studied in social psychology (see, e.g. Chaps. 7 and 11). Large numbers of experimental and field studies have been conducted to identify, for example, regularities of information exchange in groups, in order to learn about how initial member preferences are integrated into a final group decision as well as how conflicts of interest are resolved in a group (Gouran et al. 1993; Orlitzky and Hirokawa 2001; Stasser and Titus 1985). Whereas any overview of the vast literature on group decision making clearly lies outside the scope of this contribution, we would like to highlight an interesting pattern evident in human decision-making research: Human decisionmaking groups are often considered to be a tool for exchanging and integrating their members’ diverse expertise and knowledge to gain a more complete understanding of a decision problem from different perspectives and for rationally choosing the best of the available options. In other words, we often conceptualise groups as functioning something like a ‘think tank’. However, experimental and field studies

6

M. Boos et al.

of how human group decision making actually takes place often yield a different picture, namely that of maintaining options of least resistance rather than that of rationally elaborating the pros and cons of different alternatives. For example, it has been shown that once a significant majority has emerged in the group, the group selectively searches for information only supporting the majority-supported alternative instead of conducting an unbiased search for the advantages and disadvantages of extant alternatives (Schulz-Hardt et al. 2000). As further research has shown, it is not only the information search that happens in a biased manner, but also the use of information during decision making which is not only biased but strategic (Schauenburg 2004; Wittenbaum et al. 2004). Even more disappointing but not that surprising, dominant members of a group as in those with high formal status often have the strongest impact on the group decision, irrespective of the quality of their arguments (Boos and Strack 2008). Armed with the knowledge of these tendencies in human group decision making, tools developed by social psychologists are emerging to encourage a more thorough perusal of decision options (e.g. Hackman and Wageman 2005; Schweiger and Sandberg 1989). This tendency of human groups to bolster an emerging dominant tendency in the group or to overestimate the performance of a member in a high position offers striking parallels to group decision making among some non-human primates as dominance hierarchies occur in most primate species. For example, when deciding which water hole to visit, hamadryas baboons appear to use similar ‘majority rules’ paradigms to reach a decision about the group’s behaviour. Also, individuals with higher hierarchical status tend to overrule those of lower rank from food and mating opportunities. These hierarchical rankings are not always fixed, however, especially among males, and depend on intrinsic factors such as age, body size, intelligence, and aggressiveness. With origins of human phylogeny traced to our non-human primate ancestors (Chapais 2010), it is not clear how much of decision rules (e.g. dominance hierarchy vs. democratic poll) in humans is due to the intrinsic biology of our brains derived from evolution vs. how much is due to cultural factors. Thus, systematically investigating similarities between human groups and groups of nonhuman primates regarding how they make decisions appears to promise new insights into the principles that underlie decision processes in human groups. Although group cohesion and group decision making among human as well as non-human primates are interesting in their own right, evolutionary theory would suggest that the existence of these group social systems implies that they are functional with regard to environmental factors (Caporael et al. 2005). In this respect, primatology and anthropology, on the one hand, and psychology, on the other hand, differ considerably with regard to their temporal focus and considerations of what is functionally successful and what is not. Primatology and anthropology focus on the long-term existential success of group cohesion and group decision making; that is, they ask what patterns of group cohesion and group decision making are functional for group stability and the survival of group members. In contrast, psychological research focuses more on the short-term success of group cohesion and group decision making. Social psychologists are interested in whether


7

group processes in terms of information exchange or mutual understanding benefit from cohesion or specific types of cohesion (Cornelius and Boos 2003), and how high-quality decisions can successfully be achieved in groups (Boos 1996; Kolbe 2007). Furthermore, social psychological research on group performance is especially concerned with how group processes affect performance in a group by influencing member motivation, member capability, and/or member efforts in the group. An important finding is that as a consequence of these influences, performance in a group is not always ‘successful’ and can lead to process losses as well as process gains when compared to individual settings (Steiner 1972). For example, collective action in a group can lead to coordination losses among members due to the fact that their problem definitions, their goals, or their knowledge bases cannot be synchronised (Boos and Sassenberg 2001). All such human group processes examined by social psychologists affect performance consequences in the short run (e.g. anaesthesia teams’ successful management of critical non-routine events; see Chap. 5), rather than a survival or selection advantage of the group in the long run. Hence, comparative research on the consequences of group cohesion, group decision making, or – generally – group coordination and other group processes on performance criteria in human vs. non-human primate groups could offer new insights for both disciplines (cf. Wilson 1997; Wilson and Sober 1994). For example, regarding short-term consequences of group processes on performance in non-human primate groups, it is yet completely untested as to what extent the same process losses and gains that have been found in human groups also exist among non-human primates. This investigation of group-specific influences on nonhuman primates’ task-related performance would be interesting in itself (e.g. studying capability gains among non-human primates as a function of social learning in a group), but it might also contribute significantly to our understanding of process and capability losses and gains in human group performance. Another open research question concerns motivation gains and why, under specific conditions, group members exert extra effort in a group situation: Whereas some approaches trace this behaviour back to an individualistic motive (e.g. winning the performance competition and thereby gaining status in the group), other approaches postulate a collectivistic motive (e.g. caring for the group’s welfare in itself) (Semmann et al. 2003). Since most non-human primates are likely to lack collectivistic motivations, whereas individualistic motives such as striving for status can be frequently found (Silk et al. 2005), comparative studies of group vs. individual performance in tasks where performance almost exclusively depends on effort could provide interesting new evidence for this open question. Likewise, studies of human groups could take advantage of the long-term survival perspective adopted in non-human primate group research. By more extensively studying real groups in the field over extended periods of time, a more adequate picture of ‘successful’ human group behaviour might arise. Specifically, we might learn to what extent processes that directly impede the short-term performance of groups might nevertheless be facilitative or even essential for the performance, stability,

8

M. Boos et al.

and sustainability of a group in the long run. This would be a more consequent implementation of the principle of evolutionary selectivity within human social psychology research. Thus, it appears that integrating research from social psychology, primatology, and anthropology harbours substantial potential benefits for investigating the main questions regarding the evolution of social coordination behaviour: The question of how human groups coordinate can be answered partly by means of psychological research; and the more general question of how primates coordinate can partly be investigated by means of research in the domain of primatology. And finally, the questions requiring anthropological research are those that consider the differences between human and non-human primate group coordination and how human group coordination has evolved. It is therefore the objective of the above-described synergistic interdisciplinary perspective to define basic aspects and evolved psychological mechanisms (Buss 2004) of group coordination and decision making and to provide foundational principles on group functioning (Caporael et al. 2005) via appropriate comparative studies of human and non-human primate groups. Specifically, this means that interdisciplinary approaches for assessing the adaptation and selection of coordination behaviour will have to be found in order to define its contribution to the general fitness of both human and non-human primate species. We consider this an important contribution to evolutionary theory, based on the expectation that comparisons between a variety of primates should allow for determining convergent developments of social behaviour. Similarities between chimpanzee and human cultures have already been found, indicating that they share evolutionary roots (Boesch and Tomasello 1998; de Waal 2006). Furthermore, an interdisciplinary view on the evolution of social behaviour could increase our knowledge on the outlier position of human behaviour and on the importance of language and higher-order cognitive processes for group coordination such as shared mental models. Thus, within the research objective of describing the evolution of social coordination behaviour, the following five questions can be posed: 1. Which processes and mechanisms of coordination can be found in human and non-human primate groups? 2. How do coordination processes and mechanisms differ between human and nonhuman primate groups? 3. What are the costs of different strategies (e.g. democratic vs. despotic) for group coordination (Conradt and Roper 2003; Larson et al. 1998)? 4. What is the role of situational adaptation of group coordination processes and mechanisms, and does it differ between human and non-human primate groups? 5. How are means of verbal and non-verbal communication used for coordination purposes in human and non-human primate groups (e.g. Clark 1991)? These five questions will be considered in the following chapters of this book, giving a systematic overview of the research from the focal fields of primatology, social psychology, and anthropology.


9

References Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL (2000) Small groups as complex systems: formation, coordination, development, and adaption. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Baron RS, Kerr NL (2003) Group process, group decision, group action. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK Boesch C, Tomasello M (1998) Chimpanzee and human cultures. Curr Anthropol 39:591–614 Boos M (1996) Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen: Eine Prozessanalyse [Decision-making in groups. A process analysis]. Huber, Bern Boos M, Sassenberg K (2001) Koordination in verteilten Arbeitsgruppen [Coordination in distributed work groups]. In: Witte EH (ed) Leistungsverbesserungen in aufgabenorientierten Kleingruppen: Beitr€age des 15 Hamburger Symposiums zur Methodologie der Sozialpsychologie. Papst, Lengerich, pp 198–216 [Improvements of performance in task-oriented small groups: Contributions to the 15th Hamburger Symposium of Methodology in Social Psychology] Boos M, Strack M (2008) The destiny of proposals in the course of group discussions. XXIX International Congress of Psychology, Berlin Buss DM (2004) Evolutionary psychology: the new science of mind. Pearson, Boston Caporael L, Wilson DS, Hemelrijk C, Sheldon KM (2005) Small groups from an evolutionary perspective. In: Poole MS, Hollingshead AB (eds) Theories of small groups: interdisciplinary perspectives. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 369–391 Chapais B (2010) The deep structure of human society: primate origins and evolution. In: Kappeler P, Silk JB (eds) Mind the gap. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 19–51 Clark HH (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, Washinton, DC Conradt L, List C (2009) Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364:719–742 Conradt L, Roper TJ (2003) Group decision-making in animals. Nature 421:155–158 Cornelius C, Boos M (2003) Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training. Trade-offs in judgemental tasks. Commun Res 30:147–177 Daly M, Wilson MI (1999) Human evolutionary psychology and animal behavior. Anim Behav 57:509–519 de Waal F (2006) Der Affe in uns. Warum wir so sind, wie wir sind [in German]. Hanser, M€unchen Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row Peterson, Evanston, IL Fischer J, Hammerschmidt K, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2001) Acoustic features of female chacma baboon barks. J Ethol 107:33–54 Forsyth DR (2006) Group dynamics. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA Gouran DS, Hirokawa RY, Julian KM, Leatham GB (1993) The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. In: Deetz SA (ed) Communication yearbook 16. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp 573–600 Hackman JR, Wageman R (2005) A theory of team coaching. Acad Manage Rev 30:269–287 Hogg MA, Abrams D (1989) Social psychology: a social identity perspective. Methuen, London Kappeler P (2006) Verhaltensbiologie [in German]. Springer, Berlin Kerth G (2010) Group decision-making in animal societies. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behavior: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 241–265 Kolbe M (2007) Koordination von Entscheidungsprozessen in Gruppen [in German]. Die Bedeutung expliziter Koordinationsmechanismen, VDM, Saarbr€ucken Larson JR, Foster-Fishman PG, Franz TM (1998) Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24:482–495 Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY (2001) To err is human, to correct for it divine. A meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Res 32:313–341

10

M. Boos et al.

Poole MS, Hollingshead AB, McGrath JE, Moreland RL, Rohrbaugh J (2004) Interdisciplinary perspectives on small groups. Small Group Res 35:3–16 Rendall D, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Owren MJ (1999) The meaning and function of grunt variants in baboons. Anim Behav 57:583–592 Schauenburg B (2004) Motivierter Informationsaustausch in Gruppen: Der Einfluss individueller Ziele und Gruppenziele [Motivated information sampling in groups: The influence of individual and group goals]. Dissertation. University of Goettingen, Goettingen. Available at http:// webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2004/schauenburg/ Schulz-Hardt S, Frey D, L€ uthgens C, Moscovici S (2000) Biased information search in group decision-making. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:655–669 Schweiger DM, Sandberg WR (1989) Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Acad Manage J 32:745–772 Semmann D, Krambeck HJ, Milinski M (2003) Volunteering leads to rock-paper-scissors dynamics in a public goods game. Nature 425:390–393 Silk JB, Brosnan SF, Vonk J, Henrich J, Povinelli DJ, Richardson AS, Lambeth SP, Mascaro J, Schapiro SJ (2005) Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature 437:1357–1359 Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1467–1578 Steiner ID (1972) Group processes and productivity. Academic, New York Stroebe W, Frey BS (1982) Self-interest and collective action: the economics and psychology of public goods. Brit J Soc Psychol 21:121–137 Trillmich J, Fichtel C, Kappeler PM (2004) Coordination of group movements in wild Verreaux’s sifakas (Propithecus verreaux). Behaviour 141:1103–1120 Voland E (2000) Grundriss der Soziobiologie [in German]. Spektrum, Heidelberg West MA (2004) Effective teamwork. Practical lessons from organizational research. BPS Blackwell, Oxford Williams K, Harkins S (2003) Social performance. In: Hogg M, Cooper J (eds) The Sage handbook of social psychology. Sage Publications, London, pp 327–346 Wilson DS (1997) Incorporating group selection into the adaptionist program: a case study involving human decision making. In: Simpson JA, Kenrick DT (eds) Evolutionary social psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 345–386 Wilson DS, Sober E (1994) Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behav Brain Sci 17:585–654 Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Botero IC (2004) From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Commun Monog 71:286–310

Chapter 2

An Inclusive Model of Group Coordination Margarete Boos, Michaela Kolbe, and Micha Strack

Abstract The need for a cross-disciplinary inclusive model to analyse the coordination of human and non-human groups is based on observations that (1) group coordination is a fundamental and complex everyday phenomenon in both human and non-human primate groups that (2) largely impacts the functioning of these groups and (3) continues to be fragmentarily studied across disciplines. We formulate an overview of the basic group challenge (group task) of coordination and describe how the context of the group task regulates the group’s functions (effectiveness criteria) for achieving their task. We explain the basic entities that have to be coordinated and therefore analysed, illustrate the concept of coordination process mechanisms by which the entities can be coordinated, and finally argue that these mechanisms have finite characteristics of explicitness or implicitness and can and do occur before and after the core coordination process. We then go into further detail by showing how patterns emerge from the various coordination dynamics, and end with a discussion of how the various coordination levels at which coordination operates also need to be analysed with a separate IPO (input–process–outcome) ‘lens’ that revolves around the basic analytical model, ensuring that multiple perspectives as well as levels of dissolution (macro, meso, micro) are analysed. In our final section, we review the components of contemporary small group theory and integrate these components into our inclusive functions–entities–mechanisms–patterns (FEMPipo) model of human and non-human primate small group coordination.

M. Boos (*) and M. Strack Georg-Elias-M€uller-Institute of Psychology, Georg-August-University G€ottingen, Goßlerstrasse 14, 37075 G€ottingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. Kolbe Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Z€urich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Z€ urich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]


11

12

2.1

M. Boos et al.

Introduction

What is an inclusive model of group coordination, and why do we need it? An inclusive model of group coordination integrates, or – as the name suggests – includes, variables that determine how group coordination works. The need for such a model is based on observations that (1) group coordination is a fundamental and complex everyday phenomenon that (2) largely impacts the functioning of human and non-human primate groups and (3) continues to be fragmentarily studied. This chapter is organised as follows. We start with a formulation of the basic group coordination challenge, that is, the task-dependent management of interdependencies of individual contributions. In the four sections that follow, we explore the many facets of the coordination challenge, such as coordination entities: the goals, meanings, and behaviours that have to be coordinated as basic psychological levels of analysis; coordination mechanisms: the means by which the entities can be coordinated; coordination dynamics: the emerging coordination patterns; and coordination levels: the levels at which coordination operates. In our final section, we use the results of this exploration of facets of the coordination challenge to integrate these components into a workable inclusive model of human and non-human primate small group coordination.

2.2

Why Coordinate? Task Types and the Coordination Challenge

We define group coordination as the group task-dependent management of interdependencies of individual goals, meanings, and behaviours (Arrow et al. 2000) by a hierarchically and sequentially regulated action and information flow in order to achieve a common goal (see also Chap. 1). There is a long-standing concept in small group research regarding the so-called synergistic advantage of group performance compared to the same number of persons individually performing the task (West 2004; Zysno 1998). If the task is additive, the group coordination product can be calculated as the arithmetic sum of individual contributions (e.g. Hill 1982; Shaw 1976; Steiner 1972; Williams and Sternberg 1988). For example, pulling a rope, clapping hands, or brainstorming ideas are typically additive tasks. The power of the individual rope-pullers, hand-clappers, or idea-generators equals the group’s performance as a whole, and the sum of the individual ideas, for instance, defines the creativity of the group. In other words, the effectiveness of the group is measured in ‘the more (pulling, clapping, ideas), the better’ terms. The consensus among primatologists regarding non-human primate groups is that group cohabitation exists because its advantages (such as consolidation of foraging efforts and strength-in-numbers defence against predators) exceed its disadvantages (feeding competition, disease transmission, mating rivalries) (see Chaps. 13–15 for thorough treatments). In contrast, there exists an argument in the

2 An Inclusive Model of Group Coordination

13

literature of small group coordination that group performance is associated with a net loss in both productivity and efficiencies (Steiner 1972). However, other social scientists appear to side with the primatologists, arguing that a net poor group performance in human groups is unexpected (Caporael et al. 2005; Wilson 1997; Yeager 2001).

2.2.1

Coordination Challenge of Task Synchronisation

This debate within and across multiple disciplines shows in a salient fashion that the effectiveness of group performance – even at its most rudimentary level of additive tasks – is not so much an arithmetical problem but a sociopsychological coordination challenge. In pulling a rope, clapping hands, or generating ideas, people must coordinate their individual endeavours by pulling or clapping at exactly the same point in time; or in the case of non-human primate foraging, perform directional leading; or in human brainstorming, regulate turn-taking. Otherwise, in each of these instances, the contributions of individual group members could not be meaningfully concatenated into a group effort. This problem of synchronisation in time can be solved physically – in the human group examples at least – by pace-makers.

2.2.2

Coordination Challenge of Process Loss

The case of synchronising brainstorming is a bit more complicated, as we know from empirical research reported by Diehl and Stroebe (1987). If people come together in a real group to brainstorm ideas, the pool of ideas created by the group as a whole is smaller than the sum of ideas generated by the same number of individuals as participants of a so-called nominal group. This productivity disadvantage (e.g. number of ideas), also known as a process loss, of interactive groups compared to nominal groups is to be expected. In brainstorming, evaluation apprehension such as the fear of being evaluated negatively by other participants can hinder the creative potential and/or contribution of group members. Another potential motivational loss is social loafing (Latane´ 1981; Zysno 1998). One important reason for the reduced productivity of real groups compared to nominal groups is the coordination loss due to production blocking (Diehl and Stroebe 1991; Stroebe and Diehl 1994). People cannot talk at the same time, they must wait their turn in order to express their ideas, and – even more costly to productivity – they tend to forget their own ideas while listening to the contributions of the other group members. The brainstorming group coordination paradigm is a particularly useful example of a group coordination challenge because this so-called productivity loss (reduction in arithmetic sum of ideas) can also be due to a redundancy of ideas: The sum of ‘group ideas’ is less than the sum of ideas from individual group members if collated pre-process. In the case of brainstorming, group effectiveness is reduced if

14

M. Boos et al.

expressed quantitatively (number of ideas reduced due to redundancy), but the actual functional effectiveness can conceivably be increased – especially in cases of brainstorming – if expressed qualitatively due to the quality of ideas emerging from group interaction vs. individual members working alone (see Boos and Sassenberg 2001).

2.2.3

Coordination Challenge of Increased Requirements Based on Task Complexity

As can be seen in Table 2.1, coordination requirements increase with the complexity of the group task, and as the complexity of a group task correlates with its coordination requirement, different tasks face different functional effectiveness criteria (Boos and Sassenberg 2001). Interestingly, this coordination requirements–group complexity association can also be present in non-human primate group coordination, as alluded to in Chap. 15 in a presentation of mixed-species coordination. Generating tasks such as brainstorming only requires the coordination of individual goals or task representations. But because participants of the brainstorming process must generate ideas on the same question or problem, a preliminary group discussion on the question or problem will in all likelihood be necessary in order to jointly define the problem (group goal). However, reaching a joint problem definition and formulating a group goal or incentive for the subsequent brainstorming session is not a ‘generating’ task but belongs to another category of tasks, namely ‘problem solving.’ Group coordination tasks are categorised as ‘problem solving’ if there exists a potentially correct or at least optimal problem definition, and are categorised as ‘decision making’ if the group ‘only’ has to come to a consensus. Decision-making tasks are characterised by an opaque structure and a lack of a solution that can often only be clearly perceived as the correct one after the decision has been implemented (Orlitzky and Hirokawa 2001). This task is particularly complex because (1) goals and means of goal achievement are often unclear, making their establishment an important part of the decision-making task itself, (2) they involve high information requirements, as the initial information is typically unequally distributed among group members and a final decision is only Table 2.1 Task type, coordination requirements, and effectiveness criteria (as per Boos and Sassenberg 2001; McGrath 1984) Task type Coordination requirements Effectiveness criteria Generating ideas/plans Problem definitions, goals Quantity/Quality Problem-solving Problem definitions, goals, facts, Validity, correctness evaluations Decision-making Problem definitions, goals, facts, Validity, Group cohesion: task evaluations, opinions, commitment, compliance, or evaluation criteria consensus


15

possible via sharing and integrating information, and (3) they also involve high evaluation demands because the correctness of possible decision alternatives cannot be determined objectively (Kolbe and Boos 2009). Additionally, group decisions are not made in a social vacuum but involve social, affiliative, hierarchical, and agonistic aspects (Gouran and Hirokawa 1996).

2.2.4

Coordination Challenge of Other Task Complexities

Distinguishing task types as predictors of coordination requirements is useful because it shows the fundamental impact of the task on the group process. However, its limitations are obvious. In real life, few group tasks are single-faceted brainstorming or decision making in character. Instead, groups frequently face tasks consisting of different levels and qualities of complexity (see Examples 1 and 2 ahead as well as Table 2.2). Examples (and by no means an exhaustive list) of further task-defining aspects are the degree and quality of task interdependence (Grote et al. 2004; Rico et al. 2008), level of task standardisation (Grote et al. 2003), task load (Grote et al. 2010), and task routineness (Kolbe et al. under review; Rico et al. 2008). In order to meet the shortcomings of group task classifications and make more specific predictions on what has to be coordinated when and by whom, it has been suggested that performing group task analysis is helpful in sorting out predictions of task complexities and requirements (Annett 2004; Tschan 2000). For a more thorough treatment on the subject of task analysis as a means for defining group coordination requirements, see Chap. 6. In Sect. 2.3 we will segue into a finer-grained analysis of coordination requirements, exploring different entities that are to be coordinated in groups. Example 1: Family Trip A family (mother, father, 13-year-old daughter, 5-year-old son, plus both sets of grandparents) spends a weekend together. The father suggests a trip to a famous modern-cuisine restaurant at a beautiful lake, which would involve a 2-hour trip together in the car. He is used to his kids’ less-than-enthusiastic reactions to such suggestions but not sure how to interpret the smiling ‘Sure!’ from his parents and parents-in-law and even more irritated by the non‐ communicative facial expression of his wife.

Table 2.2 Coordination problem of Examples 1 and 2 Example 1 “Family trip” Example 2 “Non-human primate group” Coordination Coordination problem: This familiar This group task includes a variety of problem group situation shows that a task different decision-making (e.g. envisaged as brainstorming most where to go, when to go) and likely also involves classic decisionphysical activities (e.g. moving both making components (and lurking groups safely from one resource to problem-solving as well). the other).

16

M. Boos et al.

Example 2: Non-human Primate Group A mixed-species group of non-human primates moves from one feeding resource to the next (see Chap. 15).

2.3 2.3.1

What Is to Be Coordinated Entities of Coordination: Individual Goals, Meanings, Behaviours

The coordination problem consists not only of the interdependencies of memberspecific activity contributions (behaviours), but also of the coordination of terms and information (meanings), as well as special role expectations and intentions (goals) held by individual members of the group (Boos et al. 2006, 2007). Arrow et al. (2000) structured goals, meanings, and behaviours in an entity-levels pyramid, implying in their hierarchical design by using the label ‘levels’ that the coordination of individual member goals has an innately higher value than the coordination of individual member meanings (e.g. terms, information) and behaviours (see Fig. 2.1). We prefer not to follow this hierarchical order, as all three entities help define the coordination task itself (input) as well as the activities that will occur in the process stage of the group coordination task (process) and the functions that determine the effectiveness criteria of the group coordination task (output). For example, a case in point is coordinating spatial movements from one feeding resource to the next among non-human primate mixed-species groups (see Example 2 in Table 2.3; see also Chap. 15). Individual goals (satiation of hunger vs. wanting to rest), behaviours (some members display foraging behaviours while others nurse and care for their young), and meanings (some members know trail traits indicating prospective foraging grounds while other members recognise noise, odours, or other information indicating the approach of predators) are coordinated to secure a collective action that accomplishes spatial cohesion as its function. We therefore prefer to use an equal-lined triangle to depict a content model for the entities component of our model, implying that there is no innate hierarchical importance of individual goals, individual meanings, or individual behaviours regarding their influence on the constructs of group coordination.

Fig. 2.1 Content model for input and output entities


17

Table 2.3 Coordination problem and entities of Examples 1 and 2 Example 1 “Family trip” Example 2 “Non-human primate group” This group task includes a variety Coordination Coordination problem: This familiar of different decision-making problem group situation shows that a task (e.g. where to go, when to go) and envisaged as brainstorming most physical activities (e.g. moving both likely also involves classic decisiongroups safely from one resource to making components (and lurking the other). problem-solving as well). Coordination Individual goals (satiation of hunger vs. Individual goals (satiation of hunger vs. wanting to rest), meanings (some entities showing off vs. having fun vs. members know trail traits indicating getting it over with without quarrel), prospective foraging grounds while meanings (individual ideas of how to other members recognise noise, spend a day together), and scent or other information indicating behaviours (walking and driving approach of predators), and abilities, who is sitting where in the behaviours (some members display car) have to be coordinated. foraging behaviours while others care for their offspring) have to be coordinated.

2.3.2

Coordination of Goals

One of the most likely potential sources of intra-group conflict is a divergence of the goals of individual members. We all can probably recount more than one frustrating group experience where it turned out that we (1) found ourselves speculating about the hidden agendas of our group mates, or (2) had to realise conflicting individual goals within our group, or (3) found that our individual goals were not completely compatible with the group goal. Human groups seem to have an inherent preference to assume within-group goal congruence and avoid an open discussion to explicitly define individual and group goals (Hackman and Morris 1975). This seemingly pseudo-consensus is not necessarily harmful or insincere when group members actually agree on the same goals. However, diversity of interests is present in most cases, making the coordination of individual goals a necessary condition in the majority of cases for successful group functioning. In fact, it has been found that student teams working on a business simulation showed significantly better longterm performance when they made individual goals known in advance of planning their team task (Mathieu and Rapp 2009). We argue that achieving ‘consensus’ regarding a group goal can be understood as the explicit or implicit convergence of individual goals to a group goal, or the setting and acceptance of a given group goal, or even a combination of these contrasting egalitarian and despotic processes – the relevant outcome being a single group goal that all group members can strive to achieve. The coordination of goals refers to a motivational process comprising the integration of goals and intentions of group members (Arrow et al. 2000). In a hypothetical example of coordinating goals, one group member might approach a group meeting with the pre-process goal/intent to convince the project manager not to include the project leader presentation, while

18

M. Boos et al.

another member might have the pre-process goal/intent to convince everyone that their former school colleague should be invited to give a talk, while the project manager him- or herself might have pre-process goals/intentions to talk about ideas for guest speakers, how to track the progress of research organisation, and exchange ideas for collaborative projects. All the above pre-process goals and intentions, no matter where the group member is placed in the organisational hierarchy, are individual goals, as they have not yet been coordinated in-process. In the inclusive model we present, one of the important challenges in achieving effective group coordination is to set group goals that, by definition, can only be set in-process by the group (vs. despotically by the project manager) for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to enhance individual commitment to the group task.

2.3.3

Coordination of Meanings

On the level of meanings, coordination can be understood as the process of grounding and information sharing for the development of a common ground as well as the development of a shared mental model of information and the group task (see Boos and Sassenberg 2001; Poole and Hirokawa 1996; Waller and Uitdewilligen 2008; see also Chap. 10). In a recent interdisciplinary research task among some of the authors of this book, a group of researchers from primatology and psychology attempted to explore the ‘Evolution of Social Behaviour.’ While making efforts to reach shared mental models within this interdisciplinary research group, it soon became obvious that “meanings” in such a highly diverse group have to do with individual and discipline-specific views, perspectives, and term definitions that in a more homogeneous group can simply be assumed to be shared. As discussed in Chaps. 10 and 11, achieving a shared mental model often requires reconciliation of the ambiguities and meanings of shared information (e.g. Poole and Hirokawa 1996; Waller and Uitdewilligen 2008). Once definitions of contributed information are settled upon, a shared mental model of evaluation criteria, with the inevitable diverse opinions, preferences, and disagreements, needs to be achieved as well (Boos and Sassenberg 2001; Orlitzky and Hirokawa 2001). Establishing a shared mental model of the group task between pre-process individual goals and in-process group goals is required to accomplish any group task. The extent of coordination of meanings positively correlates to the extent of explicit and implicit agreement of group members regarding their shared comprehension of facts, tasks, topics, and terminology. Small group studies have shown that a shared mental model is so pivotal to the effectiveness of groups that it is positively correlated to both the risk and the complexity of the group task as well as the adaptability of the group to a dynamic task environment (e.g. Cannon-Bowers and Salas 1998; Cannon-Bowers et al. 1993; Klimoski and Mohammed 1994). A large portion of the challenge of achieving shared mental models is maximising the extent of explicitness in the consensus regarding meanings (for additional details regarding the importance of explicitness concerning meanings, see Chap. 11).


19

As is generally the case with coordination requirements and the complexity of group coordination, the intensity of the challenge of achieving shared mental models increases pari passu with the diversity of the group (see Table 2.1). Implicit or tacit assumptions regarding terminology are particularly disruptive to joint research efforts, as was alluded to earlier in this section regarding our interdisciplinary project. However, the appropriate degree of explicitness seems to vary among cultures (De Luque and Sommer 2000), implying that the compelling solution of ‘the more goal diversity, the more explicitness, and the more effective the group’ does not always apply to every setting – once again illustrating the complexity of the coordination problem.

2.3.4

Coordination of Behaviours

On the level of behaviour, coordination can be understood as the synchronisation of actions (behaviours) in time and space – the orchestration of the sequence and timing of interdependent actions (Arrow et al. 2000; Marks et al. 2001). As an example, in the operating room, anaesthesia team members each have different roles that are defined by task responsibilities as well as behavioural expectations during anaesthesia and surgery. Consequently, they have to coordinate their specific actions in a specific manner to be successful, involving measures of both explicit and implicit coordination appropriate to the individual subtasks and medical situation (Kolbe et al. 2009; Zala-Mez€ o et al. 2009; see also Chap. 5). One could reasonably assume that successful synchronisation of behaviours equates with the group doing the right things in the right order at the right time. For instance, groups having to work on a construction task that plan before they start working and intermittently stop to evaluate their task performance are more likely to perform well (Tschan et al. 2000). In the same vein, anaesthesia teams have been shown to perform better when their members monitored each other’s performance and subsequently either provided back-up behaviour or spoke up (Kolbe et al. 2010). Similarly, ‘closed-loop communication’ involving the receiver of the message acknowledging its receipt was found to improve group performance (Salas et al. 2005). Nuclear power plant control room teams have also been shown to perform better when they exhibited fewer, shorter, and less complex interaction patterns (Stachowski et al. 2009). An interesting example of synchronisation of behaviour via leadership in nonhuman primate groups has been identified in the coordinated group movements in Verreaux’s sifakas, an arboreal Malagasy non-human primate living in small groups observed in a study performed by Trillmich et al. (2004). The group movement was initiated more often by female individual movements than by males – and accomplished via leadership, as observations indicated that a specific so-called grumble vocalisation was likely involved in coordinating the group movements. As in the non-human primate Example 2 earlier, leadership can be defined as a sequence of behaviours, that is, the synchronisation of leadership and followership

20

M. Boos et al.

behaviour. As in other correlations of coordination, the effectiveness of leadership behaviour, such as initiating a group move or making a proposal, is positively correlated to how effective it is in eliciting followership behaviour. For example, the instruction to administer epinephrine is as effective in a reanimation scenario as it is followed regarding the accuracy of timing and dosage of administering. These examples in the literature of the criticality of effective synchronisation of actions illustrate the fundamental role of coordination (see Sect. 2.1). Depending on the nature of the group task, the three entities of coordination discussed in this section (individual goals, meanings, and behaviours) have a different weight and are focused on to a variable degree. That means that the topic of coordination (both theoretical as well as practical) is complex, as it includes dynamics occurring on the goal-orientation level, the definition of terms level, and the activity (behavioural) level. Thus, coordination is a multi-level process that references different types of entities to be coordinated and to be synchronised in one and the same process – a process we intend to elucidate further in the upcoming section.

2.4

How Entities Are Coordinated: Coordination Mechanisms

At the next level of dissolution of the coordination problem – from the atomic level of single entities such as goals, meanings, and behaviours – we can discern coordination mechanisms on the molecular level as in those of vocalisation, gesture, and odours (Conradt and Roper 2009). Mechanisms constitute the ‘toolbox’ or ‘processing machine’ of group coordination that includes, for example, interaction and communication events such as asking questions, soliciting opinions, summing up standpoints, giving expose´s on information, grumble vocalisation, and handing a scalpel to a doctor. Coordination mechanisms transform individual input entities of goals, meaning, and behaviour into group processes. As illustrated in Chap. 5, for anaesthesia teams meaning and behaviour are the two important input entities for accomplishing the group task of induction of anaesthesia. As Figs. 5.1 and 5.2 show, these two input entities – by means of coordination mechanisms – transform into the processes of information exchanges and collective actions. This is a clear example of how, depending on the task type, the emphasis on which group coordination tools are used will change, with different mechanisms occurring more (or less) often and with a different overall importance to the successful execution of the task. For purposes of simplicity, we frame our use of the process concept of mechanisms in terms of their level of explicitness or implicitness (Entin and Serfaty 1999; Espinosa et al. 2004; Rico et al. 2008; Wittenbaum et al. 1996, 1998; Zala-Mez€o et al. 2009) and their temporal occurrence (Arrow et al. 2004; Burke et al. 2006; Fiore et al. 2003; Marks et al. 2001; Tschan et al. 2000; Wittenbaum et al. 1998) (see Fig. 2.2). For a thorough discussion of these dimensions, see Chaps. 4 and 7.


21

Fig. 2.2 The coordination mechanism circumplex model (CMCM) (adapted from Wittenbaum et al. 1998)

2.4.1

Explicit Versus Implicit Coordination

We regard mechanisms such as verbal or written communication as explicit coordination because they are used purposefully, leaving few doubts about their underlying intention. Espinosa et al. (2004) distinguish between two forms of explicit coordination: programming mechanisms (schedules, plans, procedures) and verbal communication, regarding communication itself as a coordinating mechanism. Examples of mechanisms classified as implicit coordination are instances when group members anticipate the actions and needs of the other group members and adjust their own behaviour accordingly, for instance, voluntarily handing a surgeon a scalpel, automatically reporting to the team where they currently stand in their group task, or synchronically targeting a flashlight when a team member is making adjustments to a piece of machinery (Rico et al. 2008; Wittenbaum et al. 1996). Contrary to explicit coordination, coordination is reached tacitly through anticipation and adjustment. As indicated in the ‘Family trip’ Example 1 (Table 2.4), implicit coordination can only be effective if the underlying mental models are shared as well as valid, which, not so surprisingly, is not always the case. Particularly divergent goals, unequal information distribution, and ambiguity of opinions and preferences – all characteristic of more complex and risky decision situations – require a certain amount of explicitness in order to avoid classic cases and consequences of ‘miscommunication’ (‘I thought you got the purchase go-ahead from the boss’; ‘I assumed you checked the fuel gauge before takeoff’). Given that explicit coordination as defined by many researchers (e.g. Espinosa et al. 2004) almost exclusively requires language (e.g. for defining rules, giving orders), which as far as the scientific community knows is a unique human accomplishment, one might assume that there is no explicit coordination in nonhuman primate groups. In fact, even though it is more difficult, it is not impossible to discern explicit versus implicit mechanisms in non-human primate groups (see Example 2, Table 2.4). In movements of non-human primate groups (see Chap. 13), if the designated silverback male in a group of mountain gorillas starts to head in his preferred direction (Watts 2000), one could conceivably construe this

22

M. Boos et al.

Table 2.4 Coordination problem, entities, and mechanisms of Examples 1 and 2 Example 1 “Family trip” Example 2 “Non-human primate group” This group task includes a variety Coordination Coordination problem: This familiar of different decision-making problem group situation shows that a task (e.g. where to go, when to go) and envisaged as brainstorming most physical activities (e.g. moving likely also involves classic both groups safely from one decision-making components (and resource to the other). lurking problem-solving as well). Individual goals (satiation of hunger Coordination Individual goals (satiation of hunger vs. wanting to rest), meanings entities vs. showing off vs. having fun vs. (some members know trail traits getting it over with without indicating prospective foraging quarrel), meanings (individual grounds while other members ideas of how to spend a day recognise noise, scent or other together), and behaviours (walking information indicating approach of and driving abilities, who is sitting predators), and behaviours (some where in the car) have to be members display foraging coordinated. behaviours while others care for their offspring) have to be coordinated. Pre-process explicit (vocalisations), Coordination Pre-process explicit (having already in-process explicit (start heading in mechanisms talked about the trip), in-process preferred direction, vocalisations), explicit (asking the others what post-process explicit (grooming of they would like to do, organising successful leader), pre-process the trip), post-explicit (learning implicit (orienting oneself in the experience that explicit questions preferred direction), in-process produce an awkward atmosphere in implicit (some individuals our family), pre-process implicit maintaining a particular spatial (expectations about how to spend position within the moving group), the day, expectations about how to post-process implicit (increased spend a nice day, assumptions likelihood of following successful about the expectations of the others, leader at next occasion). unspoken communication rules), in-process implicit (assuming that the others would like to make the trip and tacitly agreeing), postprocess implicit (it seems that nobody wanted this trip even though they didn’t say so).

action as ‘explicit’ coordination, as there is in all likelihood little doubt among any of the group members that he is initiating a group movement. Also in Chap. 13 is an unconfirmed yet conceivable example of ‘implicit’ coordination in non-human primate groups in South Africa in which high-ranking female baboons with dependent offspring, because of their reproductive cycle, are interpreted as compelled to stay in the centre of the group or in close vicinity of a male protector instead of taking the lead when leaving the sleeping site (St€uckle and Zinner 2008). No explicit signals as such are communicated, yet their movement patterns imply a tacit ‘implicit’ behavioural mechanism of maintaining a physical position of protection for both themselves and their young – a behaviour that could conceivably be


23

interpreted as a ‘shared mental model’ as it is not opposed (stopped or contested) by the other members of the group.

2.4.2

Pre-, In-, and Post-Process Coordination

As mentioned at the onset of this section, coordination mechanisms are also classified according to their temporal occurrence. Wittenbaum et al. (1998) were the first to add this second dimension of time, explaining that coordination can take place before or during interaction (respectively, communication). This second dimension led to a four-cell scheme known as the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model (CMCM; see Fig. 2.2), validated in our empirical study in Chap. 4. The CMCM describes these four cells as (1) pre-process explicit: rules, instructions, schedules, routines; (2) in-process explicit: division of labour, communication about procedures; (3) pre-process implicit: assumptions about expertise of group members and task requirements; and (4) in-process implicit: mutual adaptation of behaviour. For the internal logic of our intended inclusive model of group coordination, we must add a third increment to the temporal dimension: post-process group coordination. In addition to pre- and in-process coordination, we can analytically and empirically identify the result of a coordination activity occurring post-process, specifically the post-coordination mechanisms that are the result of pre- and inprocess coordination such as a decision, a different location of the group, or a changed mental representation of the task in the group. In an interview study we found that experienced group facilitators have a very clear grasp of post-process group coordination, perceiving their coordination mechanisms as resulting in specific consequences, which in turn impact further group processes (Kolbe and Boos 2009). For example, after a group has finished a team meeting (in-process), all members leave with explicit and/or implicit out-process tasks (task assignments/ intentions, respectively). These out-process tasks will function as input into the next in-process iteration of the team’s group coordination (see Fig. 2.5). An example of post-process group coordination in non-human primate groups would be when inter-specific groups go their separate ways when retiring for the evening. This action results in separate sleeping sites, which, in turn, function as group coordination input the next morning (see Fig. 2.5) when the two groups rejoin for the day as an in-process inter-specific group (see Chap. 15 for additional details).

2.5

How Coordination Evolves: Patterns of Coordination

How patterns of group coordination evolve can be exemplarily explained based on a simple micro-level behavioural sequence (see Fig. 2.3). Patterns of group coordination can be found on all three entity levels, as described in the next sections.

24

M. Boos et al.

Fig. 2.3 Micro-level work model of group coordination

2.5.1

Goal-Focused Patterns

An example for a goal-focused pattern might be a case of distributed leadership, as in when somebody is presenting her information expose´ to the group. During the process of her presentation, she functions as the group leader, holding the floor, steering discussion, and soliciting questions. When she gives the floor back to the project manager, the distribution of the group leadership shifts back to the project manager, where the project manager calls on the next scheduled group member to present his presentation. The leadership role then shifts to yet a third group member. This shared leadership – the dynamic group process among group members who lead one another to help reach the group goals (Pearce and Conger 2003) – has been found to be an effective coordination pattern in a variety of work groups (e.g. Avolio et al. 1996; K€unzle et al. 2010b; Pearce and Sims 2002). Another example of goal-focused patterns was described by Wittenbaum et al. (1996). They showed in an experimental study that group members supplemented others’ expected recall when they anticipated a collective recall task (thus aiming to maximise the group’s collective recall by remembering information that others likely would not remember), but duplicated others’ expected recall when they anticipated a group decision-making task (thus facilitating the emergence of a consensus by focusing on commonly recalled information).

2.5.2

Meaning-Focused Patterns

Meaning-focused patterns can be detected where group members are funnelling idiosyncratic views into shared mental models. An example might be a design team


25

faced with the complex non-routine situation of a creativity task where different experts (e.g. product manager, graphic artist, market statistician) must coordinate their respective expertise, design approaches, and knowledge from diverse organisational fields. That means that the group should first of all produce and differentiate a large number of design ideas in order to develop a comprehensive problem view. This differentiation has to be reduced during group interaction if the group is ever to reach a final design proposal. For that purpose, increased activity towards the integration of concepts must occur. This pattern of first divergent processes (differentiation of ideas) followed by convergent processes (integration of ideas and concepts) is typical for design processes (Boos 2006b). Another example of meaning-focused patterns has been studied by Waller and Uitdewilligen (2008) in their analysis of collective sense-making during crisis situations. They found a pattern they called ‘talking to the room,’ that is, undirected talk and sharing relevant information to the room at large. Talking to the room invites other group members to actively participate in effective coordination (Kolbe et al. 2010) and has been found to facilitate identifying the accurate diagnosis in medical emergency-driven groups (Tschan et al. 2009). Meaning-focused patterns in decision-making tasks are particularly interesting. Decision making in groups is often considered a tool for exchanging and integrating their members’ diverse expertise and knowledge, discussing a decision problem from different perspectives, and rationally choosing the best of the available options. However, experimental and field studies similar to the one described ahead of how decision making actually takes place often yield a different picture, namely, that initiating group action and maintaining the group’s ability to act, rather than rationally elaborating the pros and cons of different alternatives, functionally underlies human group decision making [other functions] (see Kerr and Tindale 2004 for a review). For example, it has been shown that once a significant majority has emerged in the group, the group selectively searches for information supporting the alternative proposed by this majority, instead of conducting an unbiased search for advantages and disadvantages of the different alternatives [processes]. Further hindering the unbiased search for the most advantageous alternative is that dominant members of a group (e.g. those with high formal status) have the strongest impact on the group decision, irrespective of the quality of their arguments. Their proposals and their mode of argumentation turned out to be most successful [processes] (Boos and Strack 2008). This tendency of human groups to bolster an emerging dominant tendency in the group or to overestimate the performance of a member in a high position offers striking parallels to group decision making among some primates. For example, hamadryas baboons that decide which water hole to visit appear to use similar majority rules to reach a decision about the group’s behaviour. Dominance hierarchies occur in most primate species. Individuals with higher hierarchical status tend to displace those ranked below from food and mating opportunities. These hierarchies are not always fixed, however, especially among males, but instead depend on intrinsic factors such as age, body size, aggressiveness, and perhaps cognitive abilities.

26

2.5.3

M. Boos et al.

Behaviour-Focused Patterns

For example, in a group tasked with reconciling a decision problem (task type), there are at least two conflicting prevalent preferences (see Table 2.1). When these distinct perspectives are defined aloud (coordination requirement), the group leader can then remind the group that the goal of the group is a consensus (coordination mechanism) and that the consequences are that the distinct perspectives, albeit conflicting, both focus on a common basis (coordination result). The same processes of reaching a group consensus before enacting a result hold true in groups of gorillas who will not decide about a change in their activities (e.g. leaving their resting site in order to travel to a feeding site) as long as two thirds of the adults have not uttered loud calls (Stewart and Harcourt 1994). Such sequences can emerge into behavioural patterns, that is, a participative (majority decides) or directive (alpha male decides) style to facilitate group coordination. And yet again, the way patterns tend to evolve within the group will depend on the task focus of the group (goals, meanings, behaviour). Behaviour-focused patterns are those instances of adaptive coordination, namely, shifting from implicit to explicit behaviour according to the requirements of the task. The adaptability of these behavioural mechanisms in response to a salient cue of the task (e.g. cardiac arrest) and team situation (e.g. resuscitation devices such as a defibrillator being available) leading to a functional outcome (e.g. regained heart activity) is shown to be a prerequisite for patient safety (Salas et al. 2007). Especially the shift from the use of implicit coordination mechanisms in routine phases of task accomplishment to the use of explicit mechanisms in complicated phases seems to be a valid predictor for group performance in anaesthesia (K€unzle et al. 2010a; Risser et al. 1999). The effectiveness of adaptive coordination has been shown in a variety of studies (e.g. Grote et al. 2010; Kolbe et al. 2010; Kozlowski et al. 2009; Manser et al. 2008; Waller 1999; Waller et al. 2004). The advantage of this sequential perspective on the coordination process lies in observing, identifying, and analysing detailed process particulars. We can discover when and under what conditions during the group process particular coordination mechanisms occur, to and from whom the mechanism shifts, and what follows these mechanisms – in other words, what mechanisms are prompted and what their dimensional characteristics are (explicit/implicit; more pre-, in- or post-process), and which coordination mechanisms are ignored (e.g. opening the floor for questions). The work model of coordination (Fig. 2.3) allowing a micro-level-based process analysis of coordination would not make much sense if it were not embedded in the structural conditions and resources for coordination (e.g. leadership, hierarchy). As this model of the coordination process distinguishes preceding interactions from coordinating actions and also from consequences of the coordinating action, it zooms in on only one segment of the flow of interaction, meaning, or goal/subgoal setting. In most situations, the coordination process is part of a much larger task context or functional requirement to the group (see Example 3).


27

Example 3: Everyday Work-Life Decision Making in Public Administration: A Field Study” (Boos 1994a, b, 1996) Part and parcel to core duties of public administration is to weigh and integrate conflicting individual and public interests, for example, economic goals of extending commercial areas on the one hand and preserving ecological resources on the other hand. We found that mainly two ways of steering these heterogeneous goals and problem views were used in the organisations. We labelled the first way of goal steering ‘hierarchical decision making,’ characterised by pre-process multi-department-specific criteria regarding their respective preferred decision. The final decision rests with the head of the administrative office, who is responsible for developing a workable solution, even though the departments are expected to contribute to the decision. We also observed a goal-steering process widespread in bureaucratic organisations that we labelled ‘divisional decision making,’ characterised by department experts developing a pre-process solution to the problem specific to the point of view of their own department, such as an economic, ecological, or legal point of view. The head of the division was responsible for steering the decision-making process and leading the group to a consensus. We observed group discussions about a complex decision task and found typical patterns that differentiated quite well between the two coordination strategies. In hierarchical decision-making groups, we found a recurrence of overtaxing of the group by concurrent leadership. In the divisional decisionmaking groups, we found that everybody had their own agendas, which, by definition, were divergent. Yet knowledge of these agendas, often quite legitimate albeit divergent, was necessary to make the appropriate decision. As small group research has established, the process of collective sharing of individual, contrasting information correlates to the quality of the group decision and can lead to a rather optimal solution (Lim and Klein 2006). The advantage of proceeding hierarchically means coming to a quick decision, mostly based on proposals of the group leader and the use of rhetorical figures of speech to get his or her point across. The disadvantages of the divisional decision-making process is that it takes longer because the success of the final decision is based not only on content but also on effectiveness of arguments related to power, status, and acceptance; additionally, this procedure requires a larger amount of coordination.

2.6 2.6.1

Inclusive Model of Group Coordination Core Construct of Inclusive Model

From our considerations on small group coordination emerges a trimorphic pattern of components in our model (Fig. 2.5): (1) at the input level, three types of entities

28

M. Boos et al.

are coordinated: goals (why are we?, e.g. to safely anaesthetise a patient; to forage for food); meanings (what are we?, e.g. an anaesthesia team; conspecific groups foraging together); and behaviours [who are we?, e.g. via role-defined anaesthetist; or in a non-human primate group, some members defined as need-oriented (e.g. hungry juveniles) and some members defined as solution-oriented (e.g. foodfinding lactating mothers)]. These input entities then (2) express themselves at the process ‘mechanism’ stage, occurring at dimensional levels of explicitness (observable and identifiable vs. often neither observable nor identifiable), and at various points on the temporal spectrum (pre-, in-, or post-process). These dimensions of process mechanisms (3) result in consequent output entities of goals, meanings, and behaviours, feeding back as input such as group-task entities (in the sense of classic functional process models such as the input–process–outcome model by Hackman and Morris 1975; Ilgen et al. 2005). These elements of input entities, process mechanisms dimensions of explicitness and temporal occurrence, and consequent output operate in an effectiveness-criteria environment (functions). The environment depends on the group task, and fulfilment of functions is measured quantitatively (e.g. the more food, the better), qualitatively (e.g. the patient survives), and/or by the extent to which members either commit to, comply with, or reach consensus of the group task. In general, four basic functions of social systems are discerned (AGIL scheme; Parsons 1937), namely, (1) adaptation, (2) goal attainment, (3) integration, and (4) latent pattern maintenance. In order to manifest these social system functions, a group develops characteristic processes in coordinating their goals, meanings, and behaviours. These processes become manifold, consisting of mechanism-forming patterns such as democratic by majority rules, hierarchical autocratic rules, or self-organised.

2.6.2

Peripheral Input–Process–Outcome (IPO) ‘Lens’ for Examining Varying Levels of Dissolution

Entities, mechanisms, and process patterns can be identified as constitutive at all levels of dissolution in the analysis of group coordination, ranging from the macroto micro- levels of perspective (see also Klein and Kozlowski 2000). Thus, within our model, the classic IPO systematic is applied as a device of analysis rather than as a composite element of small group coordination. We have extended the core of our model by adding an external analytical ‘lens’ (Fig. 2.4) device to the workings of the model that enables analysis of all levels of coordination dissolution from finegrained atomic micro-level inter-individual interactions (e.g. initiator–follower behaviour), meso-level routines (e.g. resuscitation algorithms), to macro-level structures of small group coordination (e.g. hierarchical, egalitarian). Our resulting inclusive functions–entities–mechanisms–patterns (FEMPipo) model therefore offers a practical analytical tool for both human and non-human primate group coordination that can be used at any perspective (e.g. top-down or bottom-up;


29

Fig. 2.4 IPO lens of group coordination

input–process–output or output–process–input) and at all levels of dissolution (micro-, meso-, and/or macro- elements). In order to illustrate the application of the model’s IPO lens (Fig. 2.4) more closely, let us return to the example of the public administration decision-making meeting from Example 3. Using this multi-dissolution analysis that the external ‘lens’ part of our model suggests, on the macro-level, the hierarchical and divisional structures were characteristic for every bureaucratic organisation as well as predetermined modes of observed decision making. These structures were implemented in role instructions for the group members and the group leader in a free simulation of this public administration case (Boos 1994a). We expected different process patterns on the meso-level of dissolution under these different modes of group decision making (respectively, steering of group processes). In a recent study (Boos 2006a), we reanalysed the videos and transcripts with a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. On the basis of interaction process coding, we identified coordination episodes in the group discussion. These episodes were interpreted according to the rules of structural hermeneutics (Oevermann 2002). Our intent was to describe the process where the two different organisational procedures (hierarchical vs. divisional) are set into action in the group. It would be naive to contend that the instructions could be implemented one by one via an intentional process such as that of the group leader in this field study, so we instead conceptualised the group process as a combination of intended individual behaviour and the unintended collective results of individual planned behaviour. As others in small group research have concluded, the structural and process levels of group coordination are intertwined and produce emergent characteristics of the group (Poole et al. 1985). In their theoretical approach, Poole and colleagues conceptualise group decision making as a ‘structuration process,’ meaning that the process is a pattern of interrelated events from which a structured outcome emerges. ‘Structuration’ in this context means that a social system produces and reproduces itself in an ongoing process via the application of generative rules (e.g. hierarchy) and resources (e.g. technical devices; routines). Applied to the example of group decision making, group decisions are not solitary events but instead more closely

30

M. Boos et al.

resemble iterative concatenations of goal settings, convergence of meanings, and synchronisation of behaviours. This interplay of structural and process levels corresponds to two basic psychological principles: first, the constructability of a process as in our context regarding the actualisation of a coordination behaviour and its predictable outcome; and second, the spontaneity (non-predictability) of behaviour, which leads to the evolution of a pattern or ‘gestalt’ that can only partly be traced back to instructions or goals. The qualitative results corresponded to results we received from detailed process coding and time-series analysis of the data (Boos and Meier 1993). The quantitative data confirmed what we hypothesised in the qualitative study: There are significant meso-level differences between these two models of group coordination (Fig. 2.5) (Boos 1996). The design of our inclusive model with augmentations such as the embedded four-quadrant Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model (CMCM) by Wittenbaum et al. (1998) within the process part of its IPO structure and its peripheral ‘lens’ to facilitate the various levels of analysis helps us to understand coordination on these different levels of dissolution as complementary notions at integrated levels. Often, coordination on the structural level is called steering in order to depict that there is a difference in the scope of an expectation horizon: ‘Steering’ in this sense means expectation-guided orientation (sense or direction) of behaviour in social systems. Coordination relates to the requirement of an ongoing, selective

Fig. 2.5 An inclusive functions–entities–mechanisms–patterns (FEMPipo) model of group coordination


31

integration of events that consistently appear instantaneous, even though they can exert a long-term impact on economic and ecological structural alterations of a city in cases such as our field study that examined coordination dynamics of public administration decision making. An example of a multi-dissolution examination of the non-human primate arena is an analysis of leadership behaviour based on maximising survival, which might be assumed to mostly occur on the structural level. Examining non-human primate leadership behaviour on a process level is whether the group – at a specific point in time – moves on the ground or in the trees. And obviously, these various levels of dissolution perspectives are usually not mutually exclusive and should therefore be analysed with assumptions of interactive emergent dynamics and linear, sequential cause-and-effect relationships.

2.6.3

Provisions for the Iterative Structuration Inherent in Coordination

In addition to the above differentiations of the levels of dissolution in an analysis of group coordination, depending on the nature of the group and the reasons why the group coordination’s task was set up, group coordination can be either a process variable or a result variable and often times is both. As an example, we can focus the coordinated process of sharing mental models via interaction and communication or we can focus – in a specific moment in time – on a shared mental model as a result of this process. Provisions have been made for this phenomenon in our FEMPipo model, with an arrow circulating from the ‘output’ stage of the model’s core back into the ‘input’ stage of the model’s core.

2.7

Conclusion

Here again we have the distinction between process and structure, which other models have been hard-pressed to address and thus remain in the theory stage versus the field application stage. Generally, coordination relates only to the moment where goals, meanings, and behaviours converge. And this very act of coordination is irreversible. From the structural side of coordination, which, as we mentioned earlier, is often called steering, individuals and groups take such moments of convergence as an opportunity to adjust their expectations and thus identify new coordination challenges. In this sense, the difference between steering and coordination corresponds to the difference in the reversibility and irreversibility of events as well as to the difference between structure and process. It is our hope that this chapter, with its description of small group coordination theory and its consequent inclusive FEMPipo model for examining coordination elements in groups, has struck a balance between conveying an appreciation for the

32

M. Boos et al.

enormous complexity of group coordination and offering a practical analytical tool for comparative studies of coordination in human and non-human primate groups.

References Annett J (2004) Hierarchical task analysis. In: Diapor D, Stanton N (eds) The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 67–82 Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL (2000) Small groups as complex systems: formation, coordination, development, and adaption. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Arrow H, Poole MS, Henry KB, Wheelan SA, Moreland R (2004) Time, change, and development. a temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Res 35:73–105 Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Murry W, Sivasbramaniam N (1996) Building highly developed teams: focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In: Beyerlein MM, Johnson DA, Beyerlein ST (eds) Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: team leadership. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 173–209 Boos M (1994a) Entscheidungen in der € offentlichen Verwaltung. Die aufgabenorientierte Dynamik bei drei Modellen der F€ uhrung und Zusammenarbeit [in German]. Gruppendynamik 25:185–202 Boos M (1994b) The regulation of group process in decision making. German J Psych 18:207–209 Boos M (1996) Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen: Eine Prozessanalyse [in German]. Huber, Bern Boos M (2006a) Correlates and effects of the conversational coherence of group discussions. First Annual INGRoup Conference, Pittsburgh Boos M (2006b) Optimal sharedness of mental models for effective group performance. CoDesign 3:21–28 Boos M, Meier F (1993) Die Regulation des Gruppenprozesses bei der Entscheidungsfindung [in German]. Z Sozialpsychol 24:3–14 Boos M, Kappeler P, Kolbe M, Strack M (2007) Coordination in human and nonhuman primate groups. Second Annual Meeting of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research (INGRoup). Lansing, MI. Boos M, Kolbe M, Strack M (2006) Gruppenkoordination – Modellierung der Mechanismen [Group coordination – Modeling of the mechanisms]. 45 Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft f€ur Psychologie [45th Congress of the German Society of Psychology]. N€urnberg Boos M, Sassenberg K (2001) Koordination in verteilten Arbeitsgruppen [Coordination in distributed work groups]. In: Witte EH (ed) Leistungsverbesserungen in aufgabenorientierten Kleingruppen: Beitr€age des 15 Hamburger Symposiums zur Methodologie der Sozialpsychologie [Improvements of performance in task-oriented small groups: Contributions to the 15th Hamburger Symposium of Methodology in Social Psychology]. Papst, Lengerich, pp 198–216 Boos M, Strack M (2008) The destiny of proposals in the course of group discussions. International Congress of Psychology, Berlin Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E (2006) Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol 91:1189–1207 Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse SA (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decisionmaking. In: Castellan NJJ (ed) Current issues in individual and group decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 221–246 Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1998) Individual and team decision making under stress: Theoretical underpinnings. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 17–38 Caporael L, Wilson DS, Hemelrijk C, Sheldon KM (2005) Small groups from an evolutionary perspective. In: Poole MS, Hollingshead AB (eds) Theories of small groups interdisciplinary perspectives. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 369–391


33

Conradt L, Roper TJ (2009) Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B 364:807–819 De Luque MFS, Sommer SM (2000) The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behaviour: an integrated model and propositions. Acad Manage Rev 25:829–849 Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:497–509 Diehl M, Stroebe W (1991) Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: tracking down the Blocking Effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 61:392–403 Entin EE, Serfaty D (1999) Adaptive team coordination. Hum Factors 41:312–325 Espinosa A, Lerch FJ, Kraut RE (2004) Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: one size does not fit all. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 107–129 Fiore SM, Salas E, Cuevas HM, Bowers CA (2003) Distributed coordination space: toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 4:340–364 Gouran DS, Hirokawa RY (1996) Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. An expanded view. In: Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (eds) Communication and group decision making. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 55–80 Grote G, Zala-Mez€o E, Grommes P (2003) Effects of standardisation on coordination and communication in high workload situations. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 12:127–155 Grote G, Helmreich RL, Str€ater O, H€ausler R, Zala-Mez€ o E, Sexton JB (2004) Setting the stage: characteristics of organisations, teams and tasks influencing team processes. In: Dietrich R, Childress TM (eds) Group interaction in high risk environments. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 111–140 Grote G, Kolbe M, Zala-Mez€ o E, Bienefeld-Seall N, K€ unzle B (2010) Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics 52:211–228 Hackman JR, Morris CG (1975) Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York, pp 45–99 Hill GW (1982) Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one? Psychol Bull 91:517–539 Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organisations: from input– process–output models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psychol 56:517–543 Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision-making. Annu Rev Psychol 55:623–655 Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (2000) From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualising and conducting multilevel research. Organ Res Methods 3:211–236 Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? J Manage 20:403–437 Kolbe M, Boos M (2009) Facilitating group decision-making: Facilitator’s subjective theories on group coordination Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901287 Kolbe M, K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Wacker J, Grote G (2009) Measuring coordination behavior in anaesthesia teams during induction of general anaesthetics. In: Flin R, Mitchell L (eds) Safer surgery analysing behavior in the operating theatre. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 203–221 Kolbe M, K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Wacker J, Spahn DR, Grote G (2010) Adaptive coordination makes better anaesthesia crews. 25th SIOP Annual Conference. Atlanta Kolbe M, K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Burtscher MJ, Wacker J, Spahn DR, Grote G (2010) The functions of team monitoring and ‘talking to the room’ for performance in anesthesia teams. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 857–861). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Kolbe M, K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Wacker J, Spahn DR, Grote G (under review) Adaptive coordination during emergency situations: Is implicit or explicit more effective?

34

M. Boos et al.

Kozlowski SWJ, Watola DJ, Jensen JM, Kim BH, Botero IC (2009) Developing adaptive teams: a theory of dynamic team leadership. In: Salas E, Goodwin GF, Burke CS (eds) Team effectiveness in complex organisations: cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (SIOP Frontier Series). Taylor and Francis, New York, pp 113–156 K€ unzle B, Kolbe M, Grote G (2010a) Ensuring patient safety through effective leadership behavior: a literature review. Safety Sci 48:1–17 K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€o E, Wacker J, Kolbe M, Grote G (2006) Leadership in anaesthesia teams: the most effective leadership is shared. Qual Saf Health Care online first Latane´ B (1981) The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol 36:343–356 Lim BC, Klein KJ (2006) Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. J Organ Behav 27:403–418 Manser T, Howard SK, Gaba DM (2008) Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: a study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics 51:1153–1178 Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manage Rev 26:356–376 Mathieu JE, Rapp TL (2009) Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: the roles of team charters and performance strategies. J Appl Psychol 94:90–103 McGrath JE (1984) Groups, interaction and performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Oevermann U (2002) Klinische Soziologie auf der Basis der Methodologie der objektiven Hermeneutik – Manifest der objektiv hermeneutischen Sozialforschung [Clinical sociology based on methods of objective hermeneutics]. Institut f€ur Hermeneutische Sozial- und Kulturforschung e.V, Frankfurt aM Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY (2001) To err is human, to correct for it divine. A meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Res 32:313–341 Parsons T (1937) The structure of social action. McGraw-Hill, New York Pearce CL, Conger JA (2003) Shared leadership: reframing the how’s and why’s of leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Pearce CL, Sims HP Jr (2002) Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examinations of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviours. Group Dyn Theory Res 6:172–197 Poole MS, Hirokawa RY (1996) Introduction. Communication and group decision making. In: Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (eds) Communication and group decision making. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 3–18 Poole MS, Seibold DR, McPhee RD (1985) Group decision-making as a structurational process. Q J Speech 71:74–102 Rico R, Sańchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C (2008) Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge-based approach. Acad Manage Rev 33:163–184 Risser DT, Rice MM, Salisbury ML, Simon R, Jay GD, Berns SD (1999) The potential for improved teamwork to reduce medical errors in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 34:373–383 Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res 36:555–599 Salas E, Rosen MA, King H (2007) Managing teams managing crisis: principles of teamwork to improve patient safety in the emergency room and beyond. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 8:381–394 Shaw ME (1976) Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behaviour. McGraw-Hill, New York Stachowski AA, Kaplan SA, Waller MJ (2009) The benefits of flexible team interaction during crisis. J Appl Psychol 94:1536–1543 Steiner ID (1972) Group processes and productivity. Academic, New York Stewart KJ, Harcourt AH (1994) Gorillas’ vocalisations during rest periods: signals of impending departure? Behaviour 130:29–40


35

Stroebe W, Diehl M (1994) Why groups are less effective than their members: on productivity losses in idea-generating groups. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 2:271–303 St€uckle S, Zinner D (2008) To follow or not to follow: decision making and leadership during the morning departure in chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus). Anim Behav 75:1995–2004 Trillmich J, Fichtel C, Kappeler PM (2004) Coordination of group movements in wild Verreaux’s Sifakas (Propithecus verreauxi). Behaviour 141:1103–1120 Tschan F (2000) Produktivit€at in Kleingruppen. Was machen produktive Gruppen anders und besser [in German]? Huber, Bern Tschan F, Semmer NK, N€agele C, Gurtner A (2000) Task adaptive behaviour and performance in groups. Group Process Interg 3:367–386 Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gurtner A, Bizzari L, Spychiger M, Breuer M, Marsch SU (2009) Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory. A simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Res 40:271–300 Waller MJ (1999) The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Acad Manage J 42:127–137 Waller MJ, Uitdewilligen S (2008) Talking to the room. Collective sensemaking during crisis situations. In: Roe RA, Waller MJ, Clegg SR (eds) Time in organisational research. Routledge, Oxford, pp 186–203 Waller MJ, Gupta N, Giambatista RC (2004) Effects of adaptive behaviours and shared mental models on control crew performance. Manage Sci 50:1534–1544 Watts D (2000) Mountain gorilla habitat use strategies and group movements. In: Boinski S, Garber P (eds) On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 351–374 West MA (2004) Effective teamwork. Practical lessons from organisational research, BPS Blackwell, Oxford Williams WM, Sternberg RJ (1988) Group intelligence: why some groups are better than others. Intelligence 12:351–377 Wilson DS (1997) Incorporating group selection into the adaptionist program: A case study involving human decision making. In: Simpson JA, Kenrick DT (eds) Evolutionary social psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 345–386 Wittenbaum GM, Stasser G, Merry CJ (1996) Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. J Exp Soc Psychol 32:129–152 Wittenbaum GM, Vaughan SI, Stasser G (1998) Coordination in task-performing groups. In: Tindale RS, Heath L, Edwards J, Posavac EJ, Bryant FB, Suarez-Balcazar Y, HendersonKing E, Myers J (eds) Theory and research on small groups. Plenum, New York, pp 177–204 Yeager L (2001) Ethics as a social science: The moral philosophy of social cooperation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Zala-Mez€o E, Wacker J, K€ unzle B, Br€ uesch M, Grote G (2009) The influence of standardisation and task load on team coordination patterns during anaesthesia inductions. Qual Saf Health Care 18:127–130 Zysno P (1998) Von Seilzug bis Brainstorming: Die Effizienz der Gruppe [Group efficiency]. In: Witte EH (ed) Sozialpsychologie der Gruppenleistung [Social psychology of group performance]. Pabst, Lengerich, pp 184–210

.

Chapter 3

Coordination of Group Movements in Non-human Primates Claudia Fichtel, Lennart Pyritz, and Peter M. Kappeler

Abstract Many animals are organised into social groups. Because individuals have different preferences and diverging needs, conflicts of interests exist; these conflicts are particularly revealed and negotiated in the context of group movements. Thus, group movements provide an excellent example to study coordination processes in non-human primates. In this chapter we review several aspects related to group movements in non-human primates. We first summarise the current understanding of variation in spacing patterns, types of leadership, and decisionmaking processes. We then focus on methodological issues and discuss various operational definitions of group movements, and we propose an operational definition that has already been applied successfully in studies of small free-ranging groups. We conclude by discussing the possibilities and limitations of transferring concepts and methods from studies of non-human primate groups to research on human groups.

3.1

Introduction

Many animals are organised into permanent social groups. The shift from an originally solitary to a gregarious lifestyle is considered to be one of the major evolutionary transitions (Maynard Smith and Szathma´ry 1995). These social groups differ enormously in size, composition, permanence, and cohesion (Parrish and Edelstein-Keshet 1999). Their members can be anonymous to each other, or they can recognise group or even individual identity. The ultimate reasons for why animals might be group-living as well as the respective optimal group size have been investigated in detail in diverse taxa (e.g. Bertram 1978; van Schaik 1983; Zemel and Lubin 1995). These evolutionary benefits include reduced individual

C. Fichtel (*), L. Pyritz, and P.M. Kappeler Department of Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, German Primate Center, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 G€ottingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


37

38

C. Fichtel et al.

predation risk, joint resource defence, cooperative foraging, shared vigilance, and information transfer (Alexander 1974; Bertram 1978). Living in a group also leads to interindividual conflicts and costs, such as competition over resources and mates, as well as increased pathogen transmission. These factors limit the size of groups and act as a centrifugal force on group cohesion (Alexander 1974; Bertram 1978). First and foremost, individual foraging strategies and schedules are expected to be heterogeneous and are therefore a source of conflict. Growing juveniles, pregnant or lactating females, and adult males often have divergent overall activity budgets and different dietary needs, such as types of food items eaten and time devoted to foraging for each item (see, e.g. Altmann 1980; Dunbar and Dunbar 1988). Depending on the type and distribution of particular resources, intra-group feeding competition can threaten group cohesion and influence individual and subgroup movements (van Schaik 1989; van Nordwijk et al. 1993; Pulliam and Caraco 1984). A conflict of interest may also arise between the sexes when inter-group encounters have different costs and/or benefits for males vs. females (Cheney 1987) or when mating competition interferes with foraging efforts (Alberts et al. 1996). In order to maintain group cohesion and social stability despite these conflicts, individuals need to synchronise and coordinate their activities such as foraging, resting, social interactions, and collective movements if they want to reap the benefits of gregariousness (Conradt and Roper 2003, 2007; Rands et al. 2003; Kerth et al. 2006). How this trade-off is achieved and implemented at the behavioural level is not easily studied. That said, natural group movements among resources provide an operationally accessible and ecologically relevant context to study these fundamental mechanisms of social coordination. In the context of group movements, it is possible to quantify how members of a group achieve a communal decision about which activities will be carried out, where, and for how long (Boinski and Garber 2000). Because group movements are characterised by dynamics operating at multiple levels, it is heuristically useful to consider group movements on four different levels: (1) normative details of the spatiotemporal patterns of space use of a group as an entity such as travel routes within the home range and their variability according to seasonal changes and climatic conditions, resource availability, predation risk, and/or the likelihood of inter-group encounters; (2) behavioural processes describing who initiates, leads, and terminates a group movement and how many members follow whom; (3) communication mechanisms that control the processes proximately, such as vocal or visual signals used to initiate a movement and to maintain group cohesion; and (4) whether leadership is distributed or monopolised. If leadership is distributed, all group members are said to contribute to a democratic decision. If a single individual leads the group and the other group members merely follow, the decisions are said to be despotic (Conradt and Roper 2003, 2005). Because information on all four aspects is not available for most species (honey bees being an exception; see, for example, Seeley and Visscher 2004), general principles are currently best inferred from inter-specific comparisons. We adopt this approach and focus on one relatively well-studied taxon with interesting

3 Coordination of Group Movements in Non-human Primates

39

variation in social organisation: non-human primates. In this chapter we review the currently available information on group movements in non-human primates with special emphasis on the four levels described above. We then raise the issue of how group movements in animals can be operationalised by human observers in the field. Final thoughts provide a current context and future outlook on inter-disciplinary research in human and non-human primates.

3.2

Group Movements in Non-human Primates

The more than 300 species of non-human primates are interesting subjects for the study of group movements for at least four reasons. First, they exhibit more variation in social organisation than most other vertebrate taxa. Primate groups range in size from two to several hundred individuals of both sexes and multiple generations (Smuts et al. 1986). Second, primates occupy a wide range of habitats, from semi-deserts to tropical rain forests and temperate mountain forests, resulting in movements that appear to be guided by these widely differing ecological needs (Eisenberg 1981). Third, non-human primates have larger brains relative to their body size than other mammals and vertebrates, suggesting that behavioural aspects of group movements may be influenced by their unusual cognitive abilities (Reader and Laland 2002; Dunbar and Shultz 2007). Finally, primates vary across species in dominance styles and predominant communication modalities (Seyfarth 1986; Zeller 1986; Sterck et al. 1997), offering interesting behavioural variation in the social component of group movements.

3.2.1

Patterns of Group Movements

Beside abiotic variables, ecological factors such as seasonal differences in resource distribution or predation risk, as well as social influences from neighbouring groups, affect daily ranging patterns of primate groups. We illustrate these effects with a few examples below. The spatiotemporal distribution and availability of resources not only influence the size and cohesion but also the ranging patterns of primate groups (van Schaik 1983; Chapman et al. 1995). For instance, food availability has been observed to significantly affect activity profiles and habitat use of redfronted lemurs (Eulemur fulvus rufus) and red-bellied lemurs (Eulemur rubriventer) in Ranomafana National Park, a rainforest in southeastern Madagascar (Overdorff 1993, 1996). During periods of food scarcity, both species fed more and dedicated less time to travelling and resting. Redfronted lemurs in Ranomafana also conducted group movements of up to 5 km away from their usual ranges during a period of fruit scarcity in order to exploit extraordinary food abundance (a guava plantation) elsewhere. The ranging behaviour of redfronted lemurs was also affected by the differential availability of

40

C. Fichtel et al.

water during the dry and rainy seasons in the Kirindy Forest, a dry deciduous forest in western Madagascar. During the 8 month dry season, groups living close to ephemeral water holes made daily excursions of up to two to three home range diameters to drink, whereas groups living farther away from the river shifted their ranges nearer the water holes for several weeks or months and moved very little during this time (Scholz and Kappeler 2004). We also observed a group with permanent access to a water hole in their usual home range extending its range away from the riverbed (Pyritz et al. unpublished data). Presumably, lemurs exhibit this behaviour in order to avoid encounters with conspecifics from other groups or predators that are attracted by the lemurs gathering at the water holes in large numbers. Resource availability has also been observed to influence travelling patterns in chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) (Noser and Byrne 2007a). During the dry season, the study group followed linear paths over great distances in the morning to reach sparse fruit trees and ephemeral waterholes. In the afternoons, when the baboons fed on seeds, group movements were shorter and sinuous. During the rainy season, food distribution determined the onset of group movements. The baboons left their sleeping sites earlier when visiting patchily distributed fig trees than when moving towards evenly distributed fruit resources. Therefore, these baboons seem to plan movements according to the type of feeding goal. The presence of conspecific groups has also been observed to be an additional factor impacting the ranging behaviour of chacma baboons (Noser and Byrne 2007b). When neighbouring groups were present within a 500-m radius, the routes conducted by the focal group were less linear, the baboons travelled faster, and they covered larger distances between different resources. These changes in travelling behaviour are interpreted as measures to avoid group encounters, which can proceed quite aggressively in this species.

3.2.2

Processes and Leadership

The process of group movements depends on the species, group composition, and permanence. For example, fish swarms and bird flocks are often so large that members seem to neither know each other individually nor know which individuals possess decisive information, and they also appear to lack recruiting signals (Couzin et al. 2002). Cohesion and coordinated movements in such groups are often maintained by self-coordination such as individuals following the simple rule of ‘keep a certain safe distance to the next neighbour (Parrish and EdelsteinKeshet 1999; Hemelrijk 2002; Couzin et al. 2002). In contrast, in groups where members know each other individually, such as primates, certain individuals may adopt different roles and initiate and terminate a group movement (Boinski and Garber 2000). Studies of several primate species revealed that age, rank, or sex can be defining characteristics of group leaders. In many species, adult and therefore more


41

experienced and knowledgeable individuals initiate and lead group movements more often than juveniles (Japanese monkeys, Macaca fuscata: Itani 1963; Costa Rican squirrel monkeys, Saimiri oerstedii: Boinski 1991; chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes: Boesch 1991a; white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus: Boinski and Campbell 1995; mountain gorillas, Gorilla gorilla: Stewart and Harcourt 1994). In some species, dominant animals rather than the most experienced lead groups more often than subordinate individuals (hamadryas baboons, Papio hamadryas: Kummer 1968; mountain gorillas: Watts 1994; white-faced capuchin monkeys: Boinski 1993; ringtailed lemurs, Lemur catta: Sauther and Sussman 1993). However, rank is often confounded with age or sex, which handicaps untangling the relative importance of these variables in structuring group leadership. Many studies showed females to lead groups more often than males (see Table 3.1; Neville 1968; Rowell 1969; Struhsaker 1967a; Dunbar and Dunbar 1975; Oates 1977; van Nordwijk and van Schaik 1987; Boinski 1988; Mitchell et al. 1991; Erhart and Overdorff 1999; Leca et al. 2003; Trillmich et al. 2004). This sex difference is usually attributed to higher nutritional needs of females due to the energetic costs of gestation and lactation (Boinski 1988, 1991; Erhart and Overdorff 1999; Trillmich et al. 2004). Reasons for male leadership are surmised to include dominance or mating competition (Table 3.1). For example, male mountain gorillas initiate group movements after contact with a rival (Watts 1994), and in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi), males frequently lead their group to the edge of the home range presumably to make contact with females from other groups (Chapman 1990). Sex differences in leadership of groups have also been explained by sex-specific patterns of residency and dispersal and a corresponding improved information status of the philopatric sex regarding the distribution and availability of different resources (Struhsaker 1967b; Goodall 1968; Sigg and Stolba 1981; van Nordwijk and van Schaik 1987; Watts 1994; Trillmich et al. 2004). Animals were identified as leaders when they had been observed initiating movement and were therefore at the forefront of collective movements. However, the initiating individual did not always remain in the leading position during the entire movement, meaning that either changes in their forefront positioning occurred (hamadryas baboons: Kummer 1968; guinea baboons, Papio papio: Byrne 1981, 2000) or the movement was terminated by an individual different from the initiator (indris, Indri indri: Pollock 1997). There are also reports of distributed leadership where all group members equally initiated and led movements (Leca et al. 2003; Meunier et al. 2006; Jacobs et al. 2008). How and why leadership and followership evolved and how such a system can be stable have been the subject of a number of recent studies (e.g. Conradt and Roper 2005; Couzin et al. 2005; van Vugt 2006; Rands et al. 2008; Sueur and Petit 2008a). On the one hand, leadership is interpreted as a byproduct of dominance and submission in animal groups (e.g. Alexander 1987). Several other studies that mainly focused on non-primate species with no clear dominance hierarchy identified correlates of leaders, including intrinsic factors such as size or physiological

White-faced capuchin monkey, Cebus capucinus

Verreaux’s sifaka, Propithecus verreauxi Diademed sifaka, Propithecus diadema edwardsii Pygmy marmoset, Callithrix pymaea Golden lion tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia Costa Rican squirrel monkey, Saimiri oerstedii

Unknown Yes (probably no)


Unknown

Females

Females

Yes

Unknown


Yes

Unknown

Unknown

Females

No

No

Females

Unknown (probably no)

Unknown (probably no) Unknown (probably no) Unknown (probably no)

Unknown

No

Unknown

No

Unknown

Yes

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Yes (partially)

Yes (partially)

Table 3.1 Predominant sex of leaders, initiation signals and decision-making processes described in non-human primates Species Predominantly Initiation signals Decision making process leading sex Unshared Visual displays Vocal displays Combination of Shared visual and vocal displays Redfronted lemur, Females No unknown (maybe no Yes (partially) No Eulemur fulvus grunt rufus frequency)

S S S S

S S S

S

A

S

S

Q

S

Boinski (1988), Boinski (1991), Mitchell et al. (1991) Boinski (1993), Boinski and Campbell (1995), Leca et al. (2003), Meunier et al. (2006)

Boinski et al. (1994)

Soini (1981)

Erhart and Overdorff (1999)

Erhart and Overdorff (1999), Pyritz et al. unpublished data Trillmich et al. (2004)

Dataa References

42 C. Fichtel et al.

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Unknown

Females

Unknown

Unknown

Yellow baboon, Papio cynocephalus Gelada baboon, Theropithecus gelada Hanuman langur, Semnopithecus entellus Capped leaf monkey, Trachypithecus pileata

Yes

Unknown

Chacma baboon, Papio ursinus

Hamadryas baboon, Unknown Papio hamadryas

Females

Unknown

Unknown

Yes

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown (probably no) Unknown Unknown (probably no) (probably no)

Yes

Unknown Unknown (probably no) (probably no) Unknown Unknown (probably no) (probably no) Unknown Unknown

Yes

Unknown

Unknown (probably no) Yes Unknown Unknown (probably no) (probably no) Unknown Yes Unknown (probably no) (probably no) Yes Unknown Unknown (probably no) (probably no) Unknown Unknown Unknown

Unknown

Males

Olive baboon, Papio anubis

Spider monkey, Ateles geoffroyi Mantled howler monkey, Alouatta palliata Dusky titi monkey, Callicebus moloch Guinea baboon, Papio papio Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Q

A

A

A

Unknown

Unknown

A A

Yes (movements S in foraging S experiment) No S

Unknown

S

S

A A

A

Yes (departure off sleeping site) Yes (partially)

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

(continued)

Stanford (1990)

Vogel (1973)

Dunbar and Dunbar (1975)

Norton (1986)

King et al. (2008), Stueckle and Zinner (2008) Kummer (1995)

Rowell (1969), Rowell (1972b)

Byrne (1981)

Milton (1980), Whitehead (1989) Menzel (1993)

Chapman (1990)

3 Coordination of Group Movements in Non-human Primates 43

Tonkean macaque, Macaca tonkeana Vervet monkey, Cercopithecus aethiops

Unknown (probably no) Unknown

Barbary macaque, Unknown Macaca sylvanus Long-tailed Females macaque, Macaca fascicularis Rhesus macaque, Females Macaca mulatta

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Females

Unknown


Mandrill, Mandrillus Unknown sphinx

Yes

Females



Unknown

Initiation signals Visual displays

Unknown

Drill, Mandrillus leucophaeus

Red colobus, Procolobus badius Guereza, Colobus guereza

Table 3.1 (continued) Species Predominantly leading sex

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Yes

Yes (partially)

Unknown

No

No

Decision making process Unshared Vocal displays Combination of Shared visual and vocal displays Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown (probably no) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown (probably no) (probably no) Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown (probably no) Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown (probably no) Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown (probably no) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

A

S

Struhsaker (1967a)

Neville (1968), Sueur and Petit (2008a) Sueur and Petit (2008a)

van Nordwijk and van Schaik (1987)

Q

A S

Mehlman (1996)

Kudo (1987)

Jouventin (1975)

Oates (1977), Marler (1965)

Struhsaker (1975)

Q

A

A

A A

A

Dataa References

44 C. Fichtel et al.

Mountain gorilla, Males Yes Yes Unknown No Yes Gorilla gorilla (probably berengei no) Chimpanzee, Pan Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown troglodytes Bonobo, Pan Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown paniscus (probably no) (probably no) a Indicates type of data: A anecdotal, Q quantified but without robust statistical analyses, S robust statistical analyses Schaller (1963), Stewart and Harcourt (1994) Boesch (1991b) Ingmanson (1996)

Q Q

A S

3 Coordination of Group Movements in Non-human Primates 45

46

C. Fichtel et al.

state (Krause et al. 1998; Rands et al. 2003; Fischhoff et al. 2007), personality characteristics such as activity (Beauchamp 2000) and boldness (Ward et al. 2004; Leblond and Reebs 2006), positive social feedback between group members (Harcourt et al. 2009), and asymmetries in information or knowledge (Reebs 2000, 2001; Dyer et al. 2009 as an example for human groups). Because in most non-human primates, several individuals of a group may act as leaders, a combination of dominance, physiological state, personality characteristics, and also knowledge may explain why several individuals emerge as principal leaders of a group. Although leadership also involves costs such as reduced attention (Piyapong et al. 2007), individuals that lead group movements have the advantage of promoting their own interests compared to followers. Hence, conflicts over the leading position would seem likely to arise (reviewed in Conradt and Roper 2005), but they are, in fact, rarely observed. Leading and following animals may simply differ in the degree of their incentives (Erhart and Overdorff 1998), or the long-term fitness benefits related to social ties or kinship could compensate for the short-term costs of following a leader in a given situation (Silk et al. 2003; Cheney and Seyfarth 2007; King et al. 2008; Sueur and Petit 2008a). Alternatively, following may simply not be costly in each and every case, so that these conflicts do not arise permanently.

3.2.3

Mechanisms of Group Coordination

Visual or acoustical displays are obvious signals to initiate group movements. Visual displays such as staring or intentional movements in the direction of the adopted course have been reported in several primate species (Table 3.1; reviewed by Boinski 2000). For example, the dominant male in mountain gorillas usually uses a simple characteristic gesture to initiate a movement: He walks stiff-leggedly and rapidly in a certain direction (Schaller 1963). Acoustical displays used to coordinate group movements, so-called travel calls (Boinski 1991), have also been reported for a number of primate species primarily from the New World (Boinski 1991, 1993; Boinski et al. 1994; Boinski and Campbell 1995; Boinski and Cropp 1999; Leca et al. 2003). In squirrel and capuchin monkeys, travelling is initiated when an individual (occasionally two or three) moves to the edge of the group and produces a specific travel call. Byrne (1981) observed the use of vocalisations in the context of group movements in Guinea baboons (P. papio). The individuals exchange barks to stay cohesive as a group in areas of poor visibility (dense grass, thickets), as well as to coordinate themselves before the group splits up into subgroups or fusions. Some species combine visual and acoustic displays. Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) shake twigs or drum on dead wood (Mehlman 1996), and bonobos (Pan paniscus) have been observed dragging branches behind them to make their conspecifics move (Ingmanson 1996). However, in other species such as sifakas, the initiation of group movements is not accompanied by any acoustical or visual displays (Trillmich et al. 2004). The above description of inter-specific variation


47

in the existence and type of initiation signals is extremely abbreviated. It is conceivable that future studies of additional species may reveal that the existence of initiation signals is a function of group size and cohesion, with species living in larger groups exhibiting specific calls to initiate travel, and that the existence of multiple signals is related to habitat characteristics that influence the propagation of certain signals.

3.2.4

Decision Types

Group decisions can be defined as ‘when the members of a group choose between two or more mutually exclusive actions with the aim of reaching a consensus’ (Table 3.1; see also Conradt and Roper 2005). Decisions can principally be shared, unshared, or based on self-organised processes (Hemelrijk 2002; Conradt and Roper 2003, 2007). In all cases, decisions to perform a certain activity or to travel in a certain direction appear to ultimately be made by single individuals, but their consequences are manifested on the level of the group in the form of a communal decision. Only a few studies to date have described decision-making processes in non-human primates. In capuchin monkeys and Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana), each individual can principally influence the travel direction, resulting in a shared-consensus decision-making process; whereas in Rhesus macaques, dominant and older group members take a prominent role, resulting in only partially shared consensus decisions (Leca et al. 2003; Meunier et al. 2006; Sueur and Petit 2008a, b). A despotic decision-making process has been described in mountain gorillas. In this species, the entire daily routine – the time of rising, the distance and direction of travel, as well as the place and time of nest building – is determined by the silverback male. When he starts moving in a certain direction, the whole group, which seems to be constantly aware of the location and activity of the dominant male, follows (Schaller 1963). Conflicting results have been reported regarding decision-making processes in baboons. In one population, King et al. (2008) conducted a foraging experiment with two wild chacma baboon groups and found that the dominant male of the group consistently led all foraging movements to experimental feeding sites. Social ties are held responsible for subordinate individuals following the despotic leader. In contrast, Stueckle and Zinner (2008) observed in another population of chacma baboons a democratic decision-making process during their departure from the sleeping site, with adult males contributing more to the decision outcome than adult females. Thus, differences in decisionmaking processes either might be related to taxonomic differences or may vary according to the decision that has to be made: It was observed that going to a feeding site that can be monopolised by the dominant male resulted in a despotic decision, whereas the departure from the sleeping site at dawn, which probably all group members want to leave to move on to forage, resulted in a democratic

48

C. Fichtel et al.

decision. Divergent or common context-dependent interests of group members may therefore result in different decision processes.

3.3

Operationalisation of Group Movements in the Field

Because coordination processes are mostly studied in the context of group movements, we would like to raise the issue of how human observers can identify and operationally define such a movement. In fact, group movements do not always proceed in a coordinated manner and, therefore, cannot always be easily captured by a single definition. For example, several or all animals of a group sometimes travel during foraging activities (‘feed-as-you-go’), resulting in amoeboid-like movements that do not necessarily require an initiator or coordination among group members (e.g. bonobos, Pan paniscus: Wrangham 2000). Therefore, it is important to separate those movements from directed movements between sleeping and feeding sites or movements to patrol the border of the home range which require a certain degree of coordination among group members (Boinski and Garber 2000; Kappeler 2000; Pyritz et al. 2010). Early studies addressing questions about leadership, coordination processes, and communication mechanisms in collective movements employed rather basic and unspecific definitions. One of the first definitions was provided by Altmann (1979), who defined a group movement simply as ‘a displacement of the centre of the group.’ Because a displacement of the centre also occurs during the rather amoeboid-like foraging movements, this definition does not allow differentiating between the latter and more coordinated movements. In other studies, group movements were defined by the departure of the group from a resting or feeding site (Schaller 1963; Stewart and Harcourt 1994; King et al. 2008), but this definition may not capture all movements. According to definitions of more recent studies that specifically address questions about the coordination of group movements, a group movement starts when an individual moves a certain distance towards the edge of the troop in a defined time period, e.g. 10 m within 40 s (Leca et al. 2003; Sueur and Petit 2008a, b; Stueckle and Zinner 2008), and is followed by at least one conspecific. Although these definitions have the advantages of being more precise, less presumptuous regarding resting and foraging motives, and inter-subjectively comprehensible, the distance that had to be travelled in a certain timeframe to initiate a group movement was not established empirically with regard to the species-specific travel pattern. Boinski (1991, 1993, 2000) defined group movements in a number of New World monkeys by a specific travel call uttered by the initiating individual, but because not all species produce specific travel calls, this definition is not generally applicable. Some researchers therefore use combinations of the definitions described above (e.g. Erhart and Overdorff 1999). In general, a definition of group movements has to include a number of different travelling types: Primates do not only move between feeding and resting sites, but also to patrol home range boundaries and/or to search for or to avoid neighbouring


49

groups. Because groups of different primate taxa vary widely in size, composition, and cohesion, which has consequences for home range size and travel distances, the minimum meaningful distance an individual has to cover to initiate a movement as well as the definition of the corresponding followers behaviour have to be speciesspecific (Pyritz et al. 2010). Below we suggest a procedure to generate an operational definition of group movements for different taxa built upon empirical data collected during a pilot study (Pyritz et al. 2010). In order to define objective rules for directed vs. amoeboid-like movements, we suggest observing a number of randomly chosen focal animals for a period of several days. During such a pilot study, any movement of more than a body length can be recorded and estimated to the nearest metre. In addition, the latency between two movements, the total distance covered, as well as the distance to the nearest neighbours after the end of the movement can be noted. Based on meaningful breaks in the corresponding frequency distributions, a movement can be defined as follows: Start: An individual has been stationary for at least x minutes and then moves a minimum distance of x metres in a directed manner without pausing. Initiator: The individual that started the movement is the initiator. Leadership: The individual at the forefront of the moving group is considered to lead the group movement. Takeover: An individual overtakes the leader by more than several body lengths without diverging more than 45 from the initial trajectory of travel. Followers: Group members moving behind the leader are termed followers unless their movements diverge more than 45 from the leader’s trajectory. If they differ by more, the individual’s movement is regarded as a separate movement. Followers have to arrive within an x-metre radius around the terminator, no later than x minutes after termination of the movement. Termination: The end of the movement occurs when the leader is stationary again for at least x minutes (see above definition for ‘Start’). Regarding these definitions, it is important to keep in mind that the initiator does not always remain the leader during the entire movement (hamadryas baboons: Kummer 1968; Guinea baboons: Byrne 1981, 2000) and that the terminator can differ from the initiating individual (indris: Pollock 1997). In the Kirindy Forest, we recorded group movements of redfronted lemurs according to the above definition with two observers: one following the initiator, the other following the leader in case a change of leadership occurred (Pyritz et al. unpublished data). A number of times the overtaking animal was only followed by a portion of group mates. This subgroup later returned to the other individuals, which were grouped around the original initiator, who had continued leading the rest of the group. Hence, the initiator still functioned as the pace-maker of the movement, even after being temporarily overtaken by a new leader. Hidden leadership such as this has to be taken into account when defining the decision type of a certain species. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of at least two observers following groups on the move.

50

C. Fichtel et al.

We also studied group movements in Verreaux’s sifakas using the method introduced above. The two species are syntopic but differ in both group and home range size. The virtually exclusively arboreal Verreaux’s sifakas in the Kirindy live in multi-male, multi-female groups, with an average of 4.1 adult individuals per group that occupy home ranges averaging 7.3 ha (Benadi et al. 2008; Kappeler and Sch€affler 2008). The cathemeral redfronted lemurs also live in multi-male, multi-female groups composed of on average 5.6 adult individuals (Kappeler and Port 2008). Average home range size of this species is 18 ha in the Kirindy (Pyritz et al. unpublished data). Redfronted lemurs spend a significant proportion of their time on the ground, especially during long group movements. In Verreaux’s sifakas, we employed the following group movement definition: A start attempt is made when an individual is stationary for at least 4 min, then moves at least 5 m, and is followed by at least one group mate. Other group members were termed followers unless their movement diverged more than 45 from the trajectory of the movement of the initiator. A movement was considered terminated when the leading individual was again stationary for at least 4 min (Trillmich et al. 2004). By applying this definition, we found that both sexes initiated group movements but that females did so more often, led groups over greater distances, and enlisted more followers than males. Presumably, this more active role enables females to positively influence their individual foraging efficiency and nutritional intake, especially during gestation and lactation (see Boinski 1991; Erhart and Overdorff 1999). However, the sex of the leader had no effect on the probability that a group would feed or rest after a successful movement. A certain vocalisation, the so-called grumble, was emitted by both leaders and followers at high rates, both before and during group progressions, but grumbles uttered just before an individual moved were characterised by a significantly steeper frequency modulation at the beginning of the call and higher call frequencies in both females and males (Trillmich et al. 2004). The results of this study indicate that sifakas converge with many other group-living primates in several fundamental proximate aspects of group coordination and cohesion. In contrast to many other primates, however, sifakas do not use a particular call or other signals to initiate or control group movements. Our earlier pilot study suggested a group movement definition similar to the one employed for sifakas for the ongoing study on coordination of group movements in redfronted lemurs: A movement is initiated when an individual is stationary for at least 4 min, then moves at least 15 m, and is followed by at least one group mate. A movement was considered terminated when the leading individual was again stationary for at least 4 min. Followers are defined as individuals moving behind the initiator without diverging more than 45 from the trajectory, arriving within 6 metres proximity to the terminator, and no later than 10 min after termination. Preliminary results suggest that adults of both sexes initiated movements but that females do so significantly more often, both during the day and at night. Socially powerful males, so-called central males (Ostner and Kappeler 1999), did not initiate or lead group movements more often than other males. Female prevalence concerning the initiation of group movements may be due to higher and more complex nutritional needs during times of reproduction or female philopatry, but


51

this should be true for most primates and other mammals. No specific initiation movements or travel calls have been observed thus far. Comparing the operational definitions used in these two studies revealed that only the criteria for the start of a group movement and for the followers varied between sifakas and redfronted lemurs: The distance travelled for initiation of a group movement varied between 5 m in sifakas to 15 m in redfronted lemurs, and time intervals used to determine followers at the end of a group movement varied between 4 min in sifakas to 10 min in redfronted lemurs. Both sets of criteria clearly reflect the difference in daily path length as well as home range size [daily path length for sifakas: 1.1 km, home range size: 4.5 ha (Trillmich et al. 2004); daily path length for redfronted lemurs: 2 km, home range size: 18 ha (Pyritz et al. unpublished data)] and group size between species in the Kirindy, indicating that the use of such an operational group definition indeed helps to develop an appropriate way to quantify species-specific group movements. We therefore hope that future studies of primate group movements will continue to use, and eventually converge upon, similar criteria, increasing the potential for meaningful inter-specific comparisons.

3.4

Interdisciplinary Outlook

Although group cohesion and group decision making, both among humans as well as in non-human primates, are interesting in their own right, evolutionary theory suggests that both have to be functional with regard to environmental factors. In this respect, primatology and anthropology, on the one hand, and social psychology, on the other hand, differ considerably in their approaches. Primatology and anthropology focus on the long-term success of group cohesion and group decision making; that is, they ask what patterns are functional for group stability and the survival of group members. In contrast, psychological research focuses more on the short-term success of group cohesion and the mechanisms and processes underlying group decision making. For example, social psychologists are interested in whether group processes in terms of information exchange or mutual understanding benefit from cohesion or specific types of cohesion (Cornelius and Boos 2003), or how highquality decisions can be achieved in groups (Schulz-Hardt et al. 2006). Hence, comparative research on the consequences of group cohesion, group decision making, and other group processes on performance criteria in human vs. non-human primate groups could offer new insights for both disciplines. For instance, the short-term consequences of group processes on performance could be investigated in non-human primate groups. For example, it remains unknown to what extent the same process losses and gains that have been found in human groups also exist among non-human primates. Such an investigation of groupspecific influences on non-human primates’ task-related performance would be interesting in itself (e.g. studying capability gains among non-human primates as a function of social learning in a group), and might also significantly contribute to our understanding of human group performance. An open question in research on

52

C. Fichtel et al.

motivation gains in groups is why group members exert extra effort in a group situation under specific conditions. Whereas some approaches trace this behaviour back to a selfish motive (e.g. winning the performance competition and thereby gaining status in the group), other approaches postulate a more prosocial motive (e.g. caring for the group’s welfare). Since most primate species most likely lack collectivistic motivations or prosocial tendencies, whereas individualistic motives such as striving for status can be frequently found among them, comparative studies of group vs. individual performance in tasks such as predator mobbing or inter-group encounters where performance almost exclusively depends on effort could provide interesting new evidence for this open question. It also seems feasible that studies of human groups could take advantage of the long-term perspective adopted in non-human primate group research. By more extensively studying real groups in the field over extended periods of time, a more adequate picture of ‘successful’ human group behaviour might arise. Specifically, we might learn to what extent processes that directly impede the short-term performance of groups might nevertheless be facilitative or even essential for the stability and survival of a group in the long run.

References Alberts SC, Altmann J, Wilson ML (1996) Mate guarding constrains foraging activity of male baboons. Anim Behav 51:1269–1277 Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383 Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. Aldine, London Altmann J (1980) Baboon mothers and infants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Altmann SA (1979) Baboon progressions: order or chaos? A study of one dimensional group geometry. Anim Behav 27:46–80 Beauchamp G (2000) Individual differences in activity and exploration influence leadership in pairs of foraging zebra finches. Behaviour 137:301–314 Benadi G, Fichtel C, Kappeler P (2008) Intergroup relations and home range use in Verreaux’s sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi). Am J Primatol 70:956–965 Bertram BCR (1978) Living in groups: predators and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies JB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 64–96 Boesch C (1991a) The effects of leopard predation on grouping patterns in forest chimpanzees. Behaviour 117:220–242 Boesch C (1991b) Symbolic communication in wild chimpanzees? Hum Evol 6:81–90 Boinski S (1988) Sex differences in the foraging behavior of squirrel monkeys in a seasonal habitat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:177–186 Boinski S (1991) The coordination of spatial position: a field study of the vocal behavior of adult female squirrel monkeys. Anim Behav 41:89–102 Boinski S (1993) Vocal coordination of group movement among white-faced capuchin monkeys, Cebus capucinus. Am J Primatol 30:85–100 Boinski S (2000) Social manipulation within and between troops mediates primate group movement. In: Boinski S, Garber PA (eds) On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 421–469 Boinski S, Campbell AF (1995) Use of trill vocalisations to coordinate troop movement among white-faced capuchins: a second field test. Behaviour 132:875–901


53

Boinski S, Cropp S (1999) Disparate data sets resolve squirrel monkey (Saimiri) taxonomy: Implications for behavioral ecology and biomedical usage. Int J Primatol 20:237–256 Boinski S, Garber PA (eds) (2000) On the move: How and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Boinski S, Moraes E, Kleiman D, Dietz J, Baker A (1994) Intra-group vocal behavior in wild golden lion tamarins, Leontopithecus rosalia: Honest communication of individual activity. Behaviour 130:53–76 Byrne RW (1981) Distance vocalization of Guinea baboons (Papio papio): an analysis of function. Behaviour 78:283–312 Byrne RW (2000) How monkeys find their way: leadership, coordination, and cognitive maps of African baboons. In: Boinski S, Garber P (eds) On the move. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 491–518 Chapman CA (1990) Association patterns of spider monkeys: the influence of ecology and sex on social organization. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:409–414 Chapman CA, Wrangham R, Chapman L (1995) Ecological constraints on group size: an analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:59–70 Cheney DL (1987) Interactions and relationships between groups. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 267–281 Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2007) Baboon metaphysics: the evolution of a social mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Conradt L, Roper TJ (2003) Group decision-making in animals. Nature 421:155–158 Conradt L, Roper TJ (2005) Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 20:449–456 Conradt L, Roper TJ (2007) Democracy in animals: the evolution of shared group decisions. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 274:2317–2326 Cornelius C, Boos M (2003) Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training: trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Commun Res 30:147–177 Couzin ID, Krause J, James R, Ruxton GD, Franks NR (2002) Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. J Theoret Biol 218:1–11 Couzin ID, Krause J, Franks NR, Levin SA (2005) Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 43:513–516 Dunbar RIM, Dunbar EP (1975) Social dynamics of gelada baboons. Contrib Primatol 6:1–157 Dunbar RIM, Dunbar EP (1988) Maternal time budgets of gelada baboons. Anim Behav 36:970–980 Dunbar RIM, Shultz S (2007) Evolution in the social brain. Science 317:1344–1347 Dyer JRG, Johansson A, Helbing D, Couzin ID, Krause J (2009) Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behavior in humans. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B 364:781–789 Eisenberg JF (1981) The mammalian radiations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Erhart EM, Overdorff DJ (1998) Group leadership and feeding priority in wild Propithecus diadema edwardsi and Eulemur fulvus rufus. Am J Primatol 45:178–179 Erhart EM, Overdorff DJ (1999) Female coordination of group travel in wild Propithecus and Eulemur. Int J Primatol 20:927–941 Fischhoff IR, Sundaresan SR, Cordingley J, Larkin HM, Sellier M-J, Rubenstein DI (2007) Social relationships and reproductive state influence leadership roles in movements of plains zebra, Equus burchellii. Anim Behav 73:825–831 Goodall J (1968) The behavior of free-living chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve. Anim Behav Monogr 1:161–311 Harcourt J, Ang T, Sweetman G, Johnstone R, Manica A (2009) Social feedback and the emergence of leaders and followers. Curr Biol 19:248–252 Hemelrijk CK (2002) Understanding social behavior with the help of complexity science. Ethology 108:655–671 Ingmanson EJ (1996) Tool using behavior in wild Pan paniscus: social and ecological considerations. In: Russon AE, Bard K, Taylor S (eds) Reaching into thought: the minds of the great apes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 190–210

54

C. Fichtel et al.

Itani J (1963) Vocal communication of the wild Japanese monkeys. Primates 4:11–66 Jacobs A, Maumy M, Petit O (2008) The influence of social organisation on leadership in brown lemurs (Eulemur fulvus fulvus) in a controlled environment. Behav Process 79:111–113 Jouventin P (1975) Observations sur la socioecologie du mandrill [in French]. Terre et Vie 29:493–532 Kappeler PM (2000) Grouping and movement patterns in Malagasy primates. In: Boinski S, Garber PA (eds) On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 470–490 Kappeler P, Port M (2008) Mutual tolerance or reproductive competition? Patterns of reproductive skew among male redfronted lemurs (Eulemur fulvus rufus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1477–1488 Kappeler PM, Sch€affler L (2008) The lemur syndrome unresolved: Extreme male reproductive sew in sifakas (Propithecus verreauxi), a sexually monomorphic primate with female dominance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1007–1015 Kerth G, Ebert C, Schmidtke C (2006) Group decision making in fission-fusion societies: evidence from two field-experiments in Bechstein’s bats. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 273:2785–2790 King AJ, Douglas CMS, Huchard E, Isaac NJB, Cowlishaw G (2008) Dominance and affiliation mediate despotism in a social primate. Curr Biol 18:1833–1838 Krause J, Reeves P, Hoare D (1998) Positioning behavior in roach shoals: the role of body length and nutritional state. Behaviour 135:1031–1039 Kudo H (1987) The study of vocal communication of wild mandrills in Cameroon in relation to their social structure. Primates 28:289–308 Kummer H (1968) Social organisation of hamadryas baboons. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Kummer H (1995) In quest of the sacred baboon: a scientist’s journey. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Leblond C, Reebs SG (2006) Individual leadership and boldness in shoals of golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Behaviour 143:1263–1280 Leca JB, Gunst N, Thierry B, Petit O (2003) Distributed leadership in semi-free ranging whitefaced capuchin monkeys. Anim Behav 66:1045–1052 Marler P (1965) Communication in monkeys and apes. In: DeVore I (ed) Primate behavior. Holt Rinehart Winston, New York, pp 544–584 Maynard Smith J, Szathma´ry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. WH Freeman/Spektrum, Oxford Mehlman PT (1996) Branch shaking and related displays in wild Barbary macaques. In: Fa JE, Lindburg DG (eds) Evolution and ecology of macaque societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 503–526 Menzel CR (1993) Coordination and conflict in Callicebus social groups. In: Mason WA, Mendoza SP (eds) Primate social conflict. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 253–290 Meunier H, Leca JB, Deneubourg JL, Petit O (2006) Group movement decisions in capuchin monkeys: the utility of an experimental study and a mathematical model to explore the relationship between individual and collective behaviors. Behaviour 143:1511–1527 Milton K (1980) The foraging strategy of howler monkeys: a study in primate economics. Columbia University Press, New York Mitchell CL, Boinski S, van Schaik CP (1991) Competitive regimes and females bonding in two species of squirrel monkey (Saimiri oerstedi and S. sciureus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:55–60 Neville MK (1968) Ecology and activity of Himalayan foothill rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Ecology 49:110–123 Norton GW (1986) Leadership decision processes of group movement in yellow baboons. In: Else JG, Lee PC (eds) Primate ecology and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 145–156 Noser R, Byrne RW (2007a) Travel routes and planning of visits to out-of-sight resources in wild chacma baboons, Papio ursinus. Anim Behav 73:257–266


55

Noser R, Byrne RW (2007b) Mental maps in chacma baboons (Papio urisnus): Using inter-group encounters as a natural experiment. Anim Cogn 10:331–340 Oates JF (1977) The guereza and its food. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Primate ecology. Academic, London, pp 276–321 Ostner J, Kappeler PM (1999) Central males instead of multiple pairs in redfronted lemurs, Eulemur fulvus rufus (Primates, Lemuridae)? Anim Behav 58:1069–1078 Overdorff DJ (1993) Similarities, differences, and seasonal patterns in diets of Eulemur rubriventer and Eulemur fulvus rufus in the Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Int J Primatol 14:721–753 Overdorff DJ (1996) Ecological correlates to activity and habitat use of two prosimian primates: Eulemur rubriventer and Eulemur fulvus rufus in Madagascar. Am J Primatol 40:327–342 Parrish JK, Edelstein-Keshet L (1999) Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science 284:99–101 Piyapong C, Morrell LJ, Croft DP, Dyer JRG, Ioannou CC, Krause J (2007) A cost of leadership in human groups. Ethology 113:821–824 Pollock IJ (1997) Female dominance in Indri indri. Folia Primatol 31:143–164 Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs JR, Davies MNO (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 122–147 Pyritz L, Fichtel C, Kappeler P (2010) Conceptual and methodological issues in the comparative study of collective group movements. Behav Process 84:681–684 Rands SA, Cowlishaw G, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Johnstone RA (2003) Spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs. Nature 423:432–434 Rands SA, Cowlishaw G, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Johnstone RA (2008) The emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs when the qualities of individuals differ. BMC Evol Biol 8:51 Reader SM, Laland KN (2002) Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:4436–4441 Reebs SG (2000) Can a minority of informed leaders determine the foraging movements of a fish shoal? Anim Behav 59:403–409 Reebs SG (2001) Influence of body size on leadership in shoals of Golden Shiners, Notemigonus crysoleucas. Behaviour 138:797–809 Rowell TE (1969) Intra-sexual behavior and female reproductive cycles of baboons (Papio anubis). Anim Behav 17:159–167 Rowell TE (1972) Female reproductive cycles and social behavior in primates. Adv Stud Behav 4:69–105 Sauther ML, Sussman RW (1993) A new interpretation of the social organization and mating system of the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta). In: Kappeler PM, Ganzhorn JU (eds) Lemur social systems and their ecological basis. Plenum, New York, pp 111–121 Schaller G (1963) The mountain gorilla: Ecology and behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Scholz F, Kappeler PM (2004) Effects of seasonal water scarcity on the ranging behavior of Eulemur fulvus rufus. Int J Primatol 25:599–613 Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D (2006) Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Pers Soc Psychol 91:1080–1091 Seeley TD, Visscher PK (2004) Quorum sensing during nest-site selection by honeybe swarms. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:594–601 Seyfarth RM (1986) Vocal communication and its relation to language. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 440–451 Sigg H, Stolba A (1981) Home range and daily march in a hamadryas baboon troop. Folia Primatol 36:40–75 Silk JB, Alberts SC, Altmann J (2003) Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science 302:1231–1234

56

C. Fichtel et al.

Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) (1986) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Soini P (1981) The pygmy marmoset, genus Cebuella. In: Mittermeier RA, Rylands AB, Coimbra-Filho AF (eds) Ecology and behavior of Neotropical primates. Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro, pp 79–129 Stanford CB (1990) Colobine socioecology and female-bonded models of primate social structure. Kroeber Anthropol Soc Pap 71–72:21–28 Sterck EHM, Watts DP, van Schaik CP (1997) The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:291–309 Stewart KJ, Harcourt AH (1994) Gorillas‘ vocalisations during rest periods: signals of impending departure? Behaviour 130:29–40 Struhsaker TT (1967a) Auditory communication among vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). In: Altmann SA (ed) Social communication among primates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 281–324 Struhsaker TT (1967b) Ecology of vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) in the MasaiAmboseli Game Reserve, Kenya. Ecology 48:891–904 Struhsaker TT (1975) The red colobus monkey. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Stueckle S, Zinner D (2008) To follow or not to follow: decision making and leadership during the morning departure in chacma baboons. Anim Behav 75:1995–2004 Sueur C, Petit O (2008a) Shared or unshared consensus decision in macaques? Behav Process 78:84–92 Sueur C, Petit O (2008b) Organization of group members at departure is driven by social structure in Macaca. Int J Primatol 29:1085–1098 Trillmich J, Fichtel C, Kappeler PM (2004) Coordination of group movements in wild Verreux’s sifakas (Propithecus verreauxi). Behaviour 141:1103–1120 van Nordwijk MA, van Schaik CP (1987) Competition among female long-tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis. Anim Behav 35:577–589 van Nordwijk MA, Hemelrijk C, Herremans L, Sterck E (1993) Spatial position and behavioral sex differences in juvenile long-tailed macaques. In: Pereira M, Fairbanks L (eds) Juvenile primates. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 77–85 van Schaik CP (1983) Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behaviour 87:120–144 van Schaik CP (1989) The ecology of social relationships amongst female primates. In: Standen V, Foley RA (eds) Comparative socioecology. The behavioral ecology of humans and other mammals. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 195–218 van Vugt M (2006) Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10:354–371 Vogel C (1973) Acoustical communication among free-ranging common Indian langurs (Presbytis entellus) in two different habitats of North India. Am J Phys Anthropol 38:469–480 Ward AJW, Thomas P, Hart PJB, Krause J (2004) Correlates of boldness in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:561–568 Watts DP (1994) The influence of male mating tactics on habitat use in mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla berengei). Primates 35:35–47 Whitehead JM (1989) The effect of the location of a simulated intruder on responses to longdistance vocalizations of mantled howling monkeys, Alouatta palliata palliata. Anim Behav 108:73–103 Wrangham RW (2000) Why are male chimpanzees more gregarious than mothers? A scramble competition hypothesis. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Primate males. Causes and consequences of variation in group composition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 248–258 Zeller AC (1986) Communication by sight and smell. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 433–439 Zemel A, Lubin Y (1995) Inter-group competition and stable group sizes. Anim Behav 50:485–488

Chapter 4

Dimensions of Group Coordination: Applicability Test of the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model Micha Strack, Michaela Kolbe, and Margarete Boos

Abstract This chapter discusses the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model, a content model of group coordination mechanisms that proposes the dimension of explicitness and the dimension of timing (Wittenbaum et al. 1998). It aims at solving confounds in former taxonomies of coordination mechanisms. We first critique these two dimension definitions. We then report on our coder agreement study of the intelligibility of the two dimensions. As hypothesised, empirical agreement among the coders in our study varies with the built-in difficulty of the mechanism sets (macro-, meso-, and micro- level of coordination), and the expertise level of the coders (experts vs. novices) compensates for this mechanism set difficulty. Plots of mechanisms in the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model accomplish the extensional definition of its two dimensions of explicitness and timing. We close by discussing next steps in theory building, including the elimination of the intentionality construct and the consideration of the perspective of producers and targets of coordination mechanisms.

4.1

The Coordination Circumplex

As stated in the inclusive group coordination model described in Chap. 2, the elements of coordination in a group (e.g. the group’s task and functions as well as its mechanisms and processes) need to be as well specified as possible in order to describe and explain the coordination of a particular group. In this chapter we

M. Strack (*) and M. Boos Georg-Elias-M€uller-Institute of Psychology, Georg-August-University G€ottingen, Goßlerstrasse 14, 37075 G€ottingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. Kolbe Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Z€urich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Z€ urich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]


57

58

M. Strack et al.

concentrate on specifying mechanisms of successful coordination, implying a plurality of mechanisms, many of which can be neutralised, moderated, or substituted. Prior to the development of a full coordination model, the coordination mechanisms themselves must be described and structured in order to explain their efficiency. Literature from different disciplines suggests lists of mechanisms providing for the same or similar functions and entities of coordination in social systems. Some authors of theoretical papers have attempted to categorise the mechanisms into two categories. The dichotomies in Table 4.1 are intuitively arranged and are not meant in all cases to match the other mechanisms category of the same column (examples and comparisons are given later in the text). Two-category systems often confound attributes of exemplars. To resolve this, Wittenbaum et al. (1998) proposed a model with two dimensions intended to disentangle confounds of group coordination attributes. This Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model (CMCM) (Fig. 4.1) structures coordination mechanisms according to their explicitness (implicit/explicit)

Table 4.1 Some two-category systems of coordination mechanisms Coordination category 1 Coordination category 2 March and Simon (1958) Plans and prespecified Feedback and mutual programmes adjustment. Burns and Stalker (1961) Mechanic Organic Van de Ven et al. (1976), Impersonal Personal Raven (1999) Andersen et al. (2000) Artefact-based Oral Argote (1982) Programmed means Non-programmed means Direct supervision and Mintzberg (1979) Standardisation of mutual adjustment processes, inputs, outputs and norms Entin and Serfaty (1999), Explicit, verbal Implicit, cognitive Entin et al. (2005), MacMillan et al. (2004) Espinosa et al. (2004) Explicit, intended Implicit, unintended Faraj and Xiao (2006) Expertise coordination Dialogic coordination practise

Fig. 4.1 The coordination mechanism circumplex model (CMCM), (adapted from Wittenbaum et al. 1998)

4 Dimensions of Group Coordination

59

and according to the temporal phase (pre-process/in-process) when their coordination impact is accomplished. Our first aim is to discuss the advantages and weaknesses of this model. Wittenbaum et al. (1998) explained the dimensions by giving examples for the four quadrants: Explicit in-process coordination sums up leadership, facilitation, negotiation with verbal agreements, and other overt forms of communication between group members during their interaction. According to their explicitness and their temporal occurrence within the actual group process, these mechanisms are easily observed by a third party and therefore dominate small group research. Coordination ‘by feedback’, ‘personal coordination’, ‘direct supervision’, ‘dialogic’, and ‘oral coordination’ from Table 4.1 are classified as explicit in-process coordination mechanisms. In contrast, explicit pre-process coordination mechanisms are realised and perceived prior to group interaction. ‘Predefined plans’, ‘programmed means’, ‘mechanistic coordination’, ‘standardisations’ documented on hardcopy or within software systems are examples of explicit pre-process coordination from Table 4.1. In small group research guided by the input–process–outcome model (Hackman and Morris 1975), pre-process coordination mechanisms such as agendas or legal rules are commonly grouped as the task or as mere context factors. Implicit pre-process coordination mechanisms begin to take effect before the exchange of group members occurs, but they are less salient, less intentionally constructed, less appellative, and therefore less observable. Wittenbaum et al. (1998) specified expectations and shared scripts regarding the task, the other members, and context factors as examples of implicit pre-process coordination mechanisms. Constructs such as culture, common knowledge, shared mental models, transactive memory, pre-knowledge, internalised conventions, expertise, and professionalism subsume to this mechanism type (e.g. Evans et al. 2004; Ramon et al. 2008). Small group research frequently incorporates implicit pre-process coordination indirectly by considering input variables such as group combination, homogeneity–heterogeneity, and group history. Implicit in-process coordination includes mechanisms of tacit coordination (Wittenbaum et al. 1996), mutual adjustment, and local self-organisation (Fichtel et al. offer the term ‘self-coordination’ in Chap. 3 of this book to help explain tacit coordination). It might be the most challenging quadrant for empirical research, as these mechanisms are nearly impossible to observe in overt behaviour. Nevertheless, in some sense they also embody the core of social psychology mechanisms: The informational social influence as demonstrated by Sherif (1935) and the normative impact of a consensual majority (Asch 1952) are both important prototypes for implicit in-process coordination. Bearing in mind Carnap’s (1947) distinction of intensional versus extensional definitions of concepts, describing the dimensions of the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model merely through examples leaves the intensions of the terms implicit and explicit insufficiently defined. That said, even concrete examples become difficult to categorise: Is coordination by rituals, such as the greeting cycle of a telephone call, or by a behaviour setting (Barker 1968) implicit or explicit? Do other approaches outlined

60

M. Strack et al.

in Table 4.1 offer answers? Does explicitness require a persistent (verbal) code? Kim and Kim (2008) defined implicit/explicit coordination tautologically by implicit/ explicit communication, never venturing outside the in-process phase. With a similar in-process focus, explicitness for the Aptima research group (Entin and Serfaty 1999, Entin et al. 2005; MacMillan et al. 2004) means verbalisation (e.g. requests) and that implicitness works via silent but elaborated cognitions (e.g. expectations and perspective taking). Wittenbaum et al. contrasted ‘unspoken’ versus ‘verbalised’ coordination mechanisms (1998, p. 5). Taking a different perspective, Grote et al. (2003) argued that implicitness is related to automatic processes, eliciting psychological compliance without cognitive control and conscious effort, whereas Andersen et al. (2000) contrarily proposed artefact-based coordination (see Table 4.1) for its automation. Godart et al. (2001) associated explicitness with extra processes and implicitness with mutual awareness, seemingly the main diagonal of Fig. 4.1. Espinosa et al. (2004) related their implicit/explicit distinction with the concept of intention: Explicit coordination mechanisms are realised, grasped, or used with the intention to coordinate a group. However, a study on subjective coordination theories reveals that implicitness can also be used intentionally (Kolbe and Boos 2009). A necessity to check for intentionality further challenges the level of precision of the CMCM. There is a long history of debate on scientific concepts of intentionality and its related subject of perspective. Coordination mechanisms can be compared to signs studied by semiotics. The relation of a sign and intentionality is connected here to the distinction of sender- versus receivertheories of meaning (e.g. N€ oth 1995, p. 109). Concerning biosemiotics, whose subject is communication among living systems not endowed with speech, the intentionality concept was replaced by the notion of semantisation and semantic specialisation: A proper sign is produced in order to signal, with an end result of conveying meaning. An object solely interpreted by perceivers as standing for something (e.g. smoke for fire) lacks this semantisation and semantic specialisation. Then there is the development of natural communicative signs such as body structures (e.g. colours in peacocks). Such signal structures are not at all intended by any organism: They evolved and changed their function from a pragmatic one to a semantic one without personal will, but rather by the mutual communicative benefit of receivers and senders. With this semiotic background in mind, the question arises as to whether implicitness should be defined from the perspective of the producers of a coordination mechanism (if there even is a producer), or from the perspective of the targets of that mechanism. The automatic processes that Grote et al. (2003) presented seem to be defined from the targets’ perspective; the intentionality of Espinosa et al. (2004) and others might point toward the senders’ perspective. Clearly, there are a lot of tangents to the simple distinctions of the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model. Yet, in the context of group coordination mechanisms, the CMCM represents a marked progress from the two-category taxonomies in Table 4.1, which sometime confound a dimension such as explicitness with the preprocess phase, and implicitness with the in-process phase. Additionally, the model allows for a continuous distribution within each dimension and therefore offers at the very least an ordinal scaling of mechanisms within any given mechanism set. Although the dimension definitions must be articulated more precisely as research


61

progresses, we maintain that the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model (CMCM, Fig.4.1) is a viable framework for coordination theory and research. To establish the construct validity of the model, we conducted an empirical study to test the applicability of the dimensions. Although the intensional definitions remain unclear, the intelligibility of the proposed dimensions was hypothesised to be distinct enough to apply them for comparisons and to categorise observed mechanisms in the CMCM (Fig. 4.1). The main hypothesis of our study therefore proposed coder agreement for different coordination mechanisms. If different coders agreed on the relative explicitness/implicitness and on the relative pre-process/in-process status of the various mechanisms tested, the intelligibility of the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model would be validated.

4.2

Empirical Applicability

In the study of intercoder agreement on the explicit/implicit and on the pre-process/ in-process position of a coordination mechanism, the construct validity of the model is reflected in the dependency of agreement from relevant factors. The design of the study therefore took into consideration different levels of task difficulty (macro-, meso-, and micro- levels of human coordination) and different expertise levels of the coders (expert vs. novice). The latter factor was considered a compensating factor for the former. This meant that if not only the ratings of the novices resembled those of the experts on the easier tasks, but the experts reached more agreement than novices on the more difficult tasks, then the two proposed dimensions of the model (explicitness and timing) would reflect greater construct validity than a mere agreement score for all coders.

4.2.1

Study Design

The objects for the coding task were drawn from three sets of coordination mechanisms with varying levels of task difficulty (Table 4.2). The simplest task was the coordination of time and space in road traffic, potentially due to random Table 4.2 The difficulty (3) expertise (2) design of the coder-agreement study Coder expertise Low difficulty Medium difficulty (meso High difficulty (micro (macro-level): level): group level): verbal coordination of coordination by interacts in group road traffic leadership substitutes discussions Experts (the three authors) Novices (sets of students)

62

M. Strack et al.

everyday occurrence and its broad, macro-level categories. The meso-level of complexity was the coordination of groups by leadership substitutes. The most difficult set was the process analysis of micro-level verbal interactions in group discussions. We depicted road traffic coordination using the following six mechanisms (alphabetically): ‘eye contact’, ‘road traffic laws’, ‘speed bump’, ‘stop signs’ ‘traffic lights’, and ‘yield-to-the-right’. The theory of substitutes for leadership (Kerr and Jermier 1978) was utilised for the medium level of coding difficulty. As touched upon earlier, this theory proposes that certain attributes of the task, the group members, the group, and/or the organisation can serve as neutralisers or substitutes for actions of group leaders. From the list of substitutes we chose eight mechanisms: ‘group cohesion’, ‘competencies of the members’, ‘expert roles in the group’, ‘information technologies’, ‘prescriptions, plans, and formalisms’, ‘professionalism of actors’, ‘task-inherent feedback’, and ‘task structure’. The ‘executive manager’ was added as the ninth mechanism in this set. As the domain with high difficulty, we chose the category system designed for micro-level process analysis of verbal coordination in decision-making groups by Kolbe et al. (MICRO-CO; see Chap. 11 and Kolbe 2007). The categories are ordered hierarchically (see Fig. 11.1). On the subcategory level, seven contentrelated acts (verbally conveying information, opinions, etc.) and 23 coordination acts are distinguished. Are the dimensions of implicit/explicit and pre-/in-process coordination applicable to non-coordinating content acts of communication? We decided to retain these content categories in the analysis because we were curious about their plotted location in the CMCM (Fig. 4.1). Second, we anticipated it to be difficult to utilise the pre-process time dimension pole (pre- vs. in-process) for interacts that were generally all expected to take place during the discussion. Third, the intended difficulty in coding the mechanisms of MICRO-CO (Fig. 11.1) was based on the richness in details of such a micro-level system. For example, MICROCO distinguishes seven types of questions. We were curious to see whether they would cluster in a small region or disperse all over the CMCM.

4.2.2

The Coding Task

An absolute coding judgment (e.g. “This is a pre-process mechanism”) seemed unreasonable for dimensions lacking an intensional definition and socially shared anchoring points. Additionally, a simple cognitive anchoring of said judgments contradicts the notion of continuity of a circumplex. For example, a traffic sign restricting the speed limit to 30 km/h affects traffic participants more in-process than a prior learned rule to slow down in small villages. But do traffic signs act more pre-process than police stopping cars appearing unexpectedly at that location? With the history of psychological measurement in mind, we chose a pair-comparison task. The coders were instructed to consider a specific pair of mechanisms and


63

decide (1) which of the two respective mechanisms was more explicit than the other and (2) which one was relatively more pre-process than the other. Because some paired mechanisms work equally well on either of the two dimensions, we allowed for equality judgments. In those cases, however, we asked the coder to specify the tendency of both mechanisms on the axis in question. Figure 4.2 shows a section of instructions for the first coding task on road traffic (simplest task level). Three of the 15 pairs of road traffic mechanisms were used as examples in the instructions and therefore omitted from the raw data results. The m*(m 1)/2 pairs in the medium-difficulty set of m ¼ 9 leader substitute mechanisms resulted in 36 trials per dimension. Pairs of all categories in MICRO-CO (Fig. 11.1) would lead to too many trials for an expected mean motivation of a novice participant. We therefore divided the category system of MICRO-CO into three subsets: Subset A encompassed the seven content-related subcategories and the five remaining second-level categories (from ‘addressings’ to ‘interruption’). These 12 mechanisms formed 66 pairs. Subset B contained the two subcategories of ‘addressings’ and the six subcategories of ‘instructions’ and the four remaining second-level categories (from ‘structurings’ to ‘content-related statements’; see Fig. 11.1), also resulting in 66 pairs. Subset C included the six subcategories of ‘structurings’ and the seven ‘questions’ plus the four remaining second-level categories, resulting in 136 pairs for each dimension.

Fig. 4.2 The last section of the instructions for the first set of mechanisms

64

4.2.3

M. Strack et al.

Coders and Procedures

According to the design of the study, agreement among the expert coders was to be compared with agreement among the novices. The three authors of this chapter served as the expert coders. We recruited nine university students at a psychology lecture on group coordination to function as the novice coders. The novice coders were divided into three groups of three members in order to ensure that the agreement scores for the expert and novice coders were statistically comparable. Novices were instructed on how to categorise coordination mechanisms in the models dimensions with a page and a half of instructions (including Fig. 4.1 and ending with Fig. 4.2). Each novice coder worked on all three levels of task difficulty – always in the fixed order given in Table 4.2. This meant that the road traffic coding task had to additionally function as experience for subsequent coding of the leadership substitute mechanisms. With this accumulated experience, the novice coders were then assigned to code subsets of the verbal MICROCO interact categories. With this procedure, the first-level road traffic set and second-level leader substitutes set were coded by all nine student novice coders and analysed in three triads. This procedure also meant that each of the three subsets of MICRO-CO interacts (see Sect. 2.2) was coded by only three of the nine students. The expert coders worked in the same sequence on the same material, but, unlike the novice coders, they answered all three subsets of the MICRO-CO task. It is noteworthy that without being surveyed, all coders – experts and novices – reported the task to be very difficult, minimally indicating that they took their task seriously.

4.2.4

Dependent Measures and Statistics

As pair comparisons yield nominal data (see the first pair comparison in Fig. 4.2), we computed kappa coefficients utilising the formula of Fleiss (1971). Computations for the three levels of coding difficulty, for each dimension of the model, and for each mechanism (sub)set resulted in 28 kappa coefficients. Additionally, each mechanism was plotted on the circumplex model axes by aggregation of all (m 1) codes per mechanism received by one participant (with m ¼ number of exemplars per set). The sum of codes for explicitness was subtracted from the sum of codes for implicitness, and the sum of codes for pre-process was subtracted from the sum of codes for in-process coordination. Location of plotted scores ranged between (m 1) per set of mechanisms and was regarded as interval scaled. The agreement within a three-subject group per dimension was estimated by Cronbach’s a, an agreement score for interval scaled data again resulting in 28 coefficients.


4.2.5

65

Results

As visible in Figs. 4.3 and 4.4, coding agreement in both dependent variables (kappa for the raw data binary decisions and Cronbach’s a for the scaled position on the axes) was higher for the base-level set of traffic coordination mechanisms than for the meso-level set of leadership substitutes, and lowest of all for the most difficult coding level of MICRO-CO verbal interacts. Although according to strict statistical logic, an agreement score (kappa or alpha) is not additive, we regressed the 28 scores on the dummy-coded design factors based on the difficulty level of the set, the binary expertise of each threeperson coding group, and then on the interaction of these two factors to test for compensation between the expertise level of the coders and the difficulty level of the tasks. The results confirmed the expected compensatory interaction (Fig. 4.5).

Fig. 4.3 Agreement in the coding of each mechanism in each pair comparison (kappa)

Fig. 4.4 Agreement in the dimension location of each mechanism (Cronbach’s a)

66

M. Strack et al.

Fig. 4.5 Agreement regressed on difficulty of the set, coder status, and their interaction

Fig. 4.6 Location of the traffic road mechanisms (coded by three experts)

For raw decisions (kappa): b ¼ þ0.28, t ¼ 2.08 p < 0.05; for locations of the dimensions (alpha): b ¼ þ0.29, t ¼ 2.02 p ¼ 0.05; confirming that the expertise of coders compensated for the difficulty of the coordination domains. Coding among the novice group was in as high agreement as that of the expert coders for the road traffic mechanisms (mean kappa ¼ 0.59, mean alpha ¼ 0.91). As expected, novices failed to reach agreement on the verbal interacts of MICRO-CO (Fig. 11.1): they reached mean kappa ¼ 0.13 in raw data, and mean alpha ¼ 0.49 on dimensions, whereas experts reached mean kappa ¼ 0.35 in raw data, and mean alpha ¼ 0.77 on dimensions. Therefore, the plotted location results of the expert triad are valid for reporting. The mean location of the road traffic coordination mechanisms (as coded by the experts) is depicted in Fig. 4.6. Each of the six mechanisms was involved in five pairs, the axis ranging from 5 to þ5. The explicit mechanisms of ‘traffic light’ and ‘stop sign’ reached perfect agreement among the experts. The ‘yield to the right’ rule evoked the highest relative level of disagreement (Euclidian distances between its locations) found among the expert coders: One of the expert coders considered the ‘yield to the right’ rule as explicit and pre-process functioning, another expert regarded it as explicit and in-process functioning, and the third perceived it as an implicit and pre-process functioning mechanism.


67

Fig. 4.7 Location of the leadership substitutes (coded by three experts)

Figure 4.7 shows the experts’ mean plotted location of the leadership substitutes – the meso-level coding task. Only the substitution by ‘prescriptions, plans, and formalisms’ obtained perfect agreement as a maximum pre-process and explicit coordination mechanism. However, ‘professionalism of persons’ (on both dimensions) and ‘task-inherent feedback’ (on the implicit/explicit dimension) had the least agreement. To reintegrate the three subsets of the verbal interact categories of MICRO-CO, a main component analysis with pairwise data inclusion was calculated in order to estimate the standardised positions for the six mechanisms intersecting two of the three subsets. A regression of the mechanisms of each subset and dimension on these main component scores standardised all mean plotted locations of the various verbal coordination interacts. Therefore, the axes of these means (Fig. 4.8) appear as z-transformed scores. The categories of verbal interacts were widely distributed over the circumplex rather than clustered in any concentrated region (see Fig. 4.8). This result demonstrates the relativity or reference-system dependency of the axes and, for the coders, a rather deep understanding of the CMCM dimensions. At a macro-level perspective, all the micro-level categories of verbal interaction can potentially be coded as explicit and in-process. Within the reference system of micro-level interacts, the three expert coders agreed most consistently on some pre-process explicit mechanisms such as ‘giving instructions’ (a second-level category of the category system; see Chap. 11) and on the first-level category of ‘defining a goal’, a structuring activity. It also was strongly agreed that ‘interruptions’ function plainly as inprocess and that ‘comments’ and other content utterances coordinate the group discussion implicitly. Taken together, the three difficulty levels of coordination mechanisms – the most difficult at least by the experts – were understood in terms of the dimensions of

68

M. Strack et al. Implicit Coordination 2.0 Information

Comments

Repeat an Information

Content Contribution

Imply a goal proposal

Request proposals

Ask for opinions Questions

0.0

Proposal of plans Ask for plans Propose a Solution Instructions

–1.0

Ask for Clarification

Assign responsibility Goal definition

Interruption

Opinion

In- process Coordination

Pre-process Coordination

1.0

Ask for Describe own Acts information Statements

Request Clarification

Personal Address

Structuring Address Refusal Acceptance Address Ask for by Name solutions Summarize Remind, Reprove so. Ask for acceptance Ask for Decision decision

Request so. to do sth.

–2.0 –2.0

–1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Explicit Coordination

Fig. 4.8 Location of categories of verbal interacts (see Fig. 11.1; second-level categories underlined; coded by three experts, standardised by six exemplars intersecting the subsets)

the model. Intelligibility as a first validity criterion allowed a grounding plot in the quadrants of the CMCM. One of the validated features of this CMCM test is that the plots allow a scientific communication of the multi-dimensional and circumplex nature of coordination mechanisms.

4.2.6

Discussion and Outlook

In this chapter we examined the applicability of the two coordination mechanism dimensions of explicitness and timing adapted from Wittenbaum et al. (1998). Releasing the restriction of absolute judgments and allowing for relativity due to reference system dependence using pair comparisons, the three expert coders


69

reached acceptable agreement for assigning coordination mechanisms to these two dimensions (kappa ¼ 0.53, 0.46, 0.35 on decision’s raw data; and Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.90, 0.85, 0.77 on dimension locations for the least difficult, medium, and most difficult set, respectively). The novice student coders, on the other hand, matched the experts’ agreement level on the easier set but failed to agree on the coordination mechanisms of the more difficult levels. Nevertheless, the hypothesised compensatory interaction of task difficulty and coding expertise was statistically established as illustrated in Fig. 4.6. Thus, despite of the lack of intensional (and therewith producer/target) definitions of the dimensions discussed in the Introduction, experts acquainted with the observation of coordination mechanisms at different levels of social systems (e.g. in organisations from a macro-level point of view), in groups from a medium level, and within a single discussion in a microlevel attitude managed to cope rather well with the model. Experts in group coordination were able to decide the relative pre-process versus in-process influence as well as the relative amount of implicitness versus explicitness of two given mechanisms within the context of a mechanism set reference system. However, our results also illustrate the necessity to code mechanisms by more than one expert in order to achieve the desired level of reliability and robustness of results. This rather cumbersome and time-intensive procedure needs to be maintained until clear and intelligible intensional definitions are formulated. Our main observation is a reconfirmation that coordination is executed on different levels of interaction: the macro-, meso-, and micro- level, respectively. But because we also have learned that switching cognitively among these levels can lead to qualitative changes in the meaning of pre-process and in-process or implicitness and explicitness, questions remain regarding a characterisation process for intensional and perspective aspects of coordination mechanisms. Our tentative solution is to adhere to the pair-comparison approach within a reference set of mechanisms until these questions are resolved. Secondly, our test helped to illustrate the unsolved question that perspective of coordination mechanisms (producer vs. target) was ignored in former literature on the CMCM. To pique a discussion of this problem, our injection of the component of varying levels of coordination complexity as an attribute of the reference set of coordination mechanisms seemed to have helped. For coordination of large-scale human social systems (macro-level), the usual research focus is the so-called architecture of control (Lockton 2005), where the intention of the producer becomes the salient position. Pre-process and explicit versus in-process and implicit mechanisms seem the obvious prototypes, being well understood from the producer’s perspective, perhaps because it’s easy to identify with Lockton’s controller when analysing macro-coordination. However, even in the road traffic set, we chose not to apply the perspective of the producer. Speed bumps, a typical design artefact explicitly intended by their producer to slow down traffic, were coded as an implicit in-process mechanism (see Fig. 4.6). Speed bumps appear to be implicit and in-process functioning if viewed from the perspective of the target of the mechanism. In terms of intentionality, targets (in this case: drivers) adaptively slow down mainly to secure their cars and their comfort. In other words, low

70

M. Strack et al.

motivation to comply with traffic road laws would not change their actual driving behaviour when faced with a speed bump due to the overriding risk to their car and their comfort. This helps explain why explicit coordination mechanisms from the perspective of the target generally need the target’s compliance (a weaker form of intentionality) in order for the mechanism to be executed in the first place. Is it this freedom not to comply that makes a coordination mechanism explicit (and in our speed bump scenario, ‘implicit’ because the targets’ reduced speed has nothing to do with intended compliance to the speed limit) and also explains why some explicit mechanisms might work less than perfectly? But the effectiveness of a mechanism does not necessarily bias its positioning in the coordination circumplex (Fig. 4.1). From the perspective of the target, implicit mechanisms can carry a higher compliance risk (and, in some cases, a correlating compliance motivation) because the target is free to overlook them, but at the peril of their car or worse in our example. We also observed that both task structure and task-inherent feedback as leadership substitutes in teams also function implicitly and in-process (see Fig. 4.7). Similarly to the speed bump coordination mechanism, they both seem related to the perspective of the target. The implicit in-process quadrant of the coordination mechanism circle looking at the micro-level (Fig. 4.8) is filled with content contributions. Content does not convey normative information, but implicitly changes the micro-level knowledge environment and task for thoughts and acts. Content contributions may function as a ‘neighbour thought’, evoking ‘self-coordination’ in discussions. No explicit intentions are needed to evoke the changes these content contributions make to the ongoing group process. Harkening back to the landmark of Jones and Gerard (1967) behaviouristic model of three types of interaction patterns, pseudo-contingent behaviour (rooted in a third information source) is caused by such in-process implicit mechanisms as in the rhythm of music for dance movements, speed bumps for car drivers, and task structures and/or actual content of an ongoing discussion. The implicitness of these mechanisms is unrelated to producer intention even though the music may have been chosen by a disc jockey, the speed bumps planned by city traffic management, and even the task structure of an ongoing discussion carefully designed by symbolic leadership (Schein 1992). It is even conceivable that interruptions and repetitions are sometimes produced intentionally to control the discussion (Kolbe and Boos 2009). But from the perspective of the coping individual (the target’s perspective), their adaptations to affordances of the mechanisms in all three scenarios are uncorrelated to the existence of manipulation (producer) intentions. The discussion of mechanism intentionality and perspective seems like a bottomless pit. In the discipline of semiotics, objects with a major pragmatic function (judged from external perspective), even if accomplishing a minor semantic function (from target and external perspective), are distinguished from signs with a major semantic function (semantic specialisation, e.g. N€oth 1995, pp. 156, 441), as biosemiotics by definition excludes external attribute intentions of nonhuman animals and plants. Analogously, according to the mechanism’s functional specialisation, explicit mechanisms realise coordination as their major function


71

(external perspective), whereas implicit mechanisms lack this functional specialisation. Task-inherent feedback and content contributions from the targets’ perspective seem functionally unspecialised regarding their coordination realisation. But what about speed bumps, with an explicit functional intent from the producers’ perspective but an implicit coordination realisation from the targets’ perspective? Even though the CMCM is neutral regarding perspective considerations, we contend that the targets’ perspective as the reference point for the external coordination realisation is more reflective of the actual affects of the coordination mechanisms (see Figs. 4.6–4.8). Following these considerations, explicitness means accomplishing a major coordination function: An explicit coordination mechanism possesses specialisation; an implicit coordination mechanism does not. Additionally, the functions of coordination mechanisms can change over time: Some mechanisms can continuously specialise themselves for different functions, and therefore change their temporal (pre-/in-/post-process) dimension location as well as their explicit/implicit dimension location in the CMCM quadrants (Fig. 4.1). This lack of clarity regarding the theoretical status of the ‘intention’ construct and how it affects coordination realisation, especially in the context of non-human primate group coordination, has generated several questions for further theory building and empirical research. Small group research should continue to develop a convention of the implicit/explicit and pre-process/in-process mechanisms for different complexity levels and forms of coordination processes. This is absolutely essential if we are ever to hope for consensus among researchers from different backgrounds and disciplines regarding a fully functional characterisation model of coordination mechanisms of both human and non-human primate groups. It is also important that questions regarding producer vs. target perspective relative to the two coordination circumplex dimensions are further researched and eventually accounted for in such a model. For instance, if a coordination mechanism is defined as explicit due to the intention of a producer, but as implicit due to going unnoticed as such by the target, yet nevertheless as a successful coordination mechanism due to its asserted effect on the target’s behaviour (e.g. our speed bump scenario), its plotting on the CMCM becomes split. Two circles would be needed in order for the CMCM to accommodate the plotting of this scenario: one for the controller, one for the target. In such scenarios we prefer the perspective of the target because this perspective represents the actual realisation of the mechanism. Then there are questions evoked by temporality that need to be addressed. The CMCM distinguishes pre-process and in-process phases. Two interpretations are potentially applicable: (1) the onset timing of a coordination mechanism and (2) the durability of its effectiveness, or ‘power’. Consider the basis of power (Raven 1965) as a set of coordination mechanisms on a meso- or macro-level. Raven (1999) later considered the durability of power based on ‘information’ as longer lasting and having more sustainable effects without in-process surveillance compared to other power bases such as assertion of authority. In our study of verbal acts, content contributions (statements, comments, information), if identified as coordination mechanisms, were coded as relatively implicit and in-process coordination (Fig. 4.7). But requests, goal definitions, and implications of goals were plotted on the pre-process section of the

72

M. Strack et al.

micro-level CMCM because their effects are sustained over longer durations. Both aspects of temporality (onset and durability) seem to fit, depending on the macro- or micro- level of the coordination reference set. We show in this chapter some data on the intelligibility and therefore applicability of the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model. But assessment of the overall effectiveness of the model is another matter. Yet even with all the abovementioned caveats requiring additional clarification and study, we nevertheless believe in the applicability of the CMCM as a helpful model when analysing the timing and explicit/implicit descriptions of coordination in both human and, potentially, non-human primates.

References Andersen PB, Carstensen PH, Nielsen M (2000) Dimensions of coordination. LAP 2000. In: The Fifth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling. Available at http://www.cs.aau.dk/ Argote L (1982) Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Admin Sci Quart 27:420–434 Asch SE (1952) Social psychology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Barker RG (1968) Ecological psychology: concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behaviour. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistock, London Carnap R (1947) Meaning and necessity. A study in semantics and modal logic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Entin EE, Serfaty D (1999) Adaptive team coordination. Hum Factors 41:312–325 Entin EE, Diedrich FJ, Weil SA, See KA, Serfaty D (2005) Understanding team adaptation via team communication. In: Proceedings of the Human Systems Integration Conference, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.aptima.com/ Espinosa A, Lerch FJ, Kraut RE (2004) Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: one size does not fit all. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 107–129 Evans AW, Harper ME, Jentsch F (2004) I know what you’re thinking: eliciting mental models about familiar teammates. In: Canãs AJ, Novak JD, Gonza´lez FM (Eds) Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain 2004. Available at http://www.cmc.ihmc.us Faraj S, Xiao Y (2006) Coordination in fast-response organizations. Manage Sci 55:1155–1169 Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:378–382 Godart C, Halin G, Bignon JC, Bouthier C, Malcurat O, Molli P (2001) Implicit or explicit coordination of virtual teams in building design. CAADRIA01 Sydney, Australia, pp 429–434. Available at http://www.crai.archi.fr Grote G, Zala-Mez€o E, Grommes P (2003) Effects of standardization on coordination and communication in high workload situations. In: Dietrich R (ed) Communication in high risk environment. Helmut Buske, Hamburg, pp 127–154 Hackman JR, Morris CG (1975) Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 8. Academic, New York, pp 45–99 Jones EE, Gerard HB (1967) Foundations of social psychology. Wiley, New York


73

Kerr S, Jermier JM (1978) Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organ Behav Hum Perf 22:375–403 Kim H, Kim D (2008) The effects of the coordination support on shared mental models and coordinated action. Brit J Educ Technol 39:522–537 Kolbe M (2007) Explicit process coordination of decision-making groups (German: Explizite Prozesskoordination von Entscheidungsfindungsgruppen). SUB, University of Goettingen. Available at http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2007/kolbe/ Kolbe M, Boos M (2009) Facilitating group decision-making: facilitator’s subjective theories on group coordination. Forum: Qual Soc Res 10(1):29 Lockton D (2005) Architectures of control in consumer product design. Master’s thesis, Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge. Available at http://www.danlockton.co.uk/ research/Architectures_of_Control_v1_01.pdf MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D (2004) Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (Eds) Team cognition: Process and performance at the interand intra-individual level. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.aptima.com/publications/2004_MacMillan_EntinEE_Serfaty.pdf March J, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ N€ oth W (1995) Handbook of semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN Ramon R, Sanchez-Manzanarez M, Gil F, Gibson C (2008) Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge-based approach. Acad Manage Rev 33:163–184 Raven BH (1965) Social influence and power. In: Steiner ID, Fishbein M (eds) Current studies in social psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 371–382 Raven BH (1999) Influence, power, religion, and the mechanism of social control. J Soc Issues 55:161–186 Schein EH (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Sherif M (1935) The psychology of social norms. Harper and Row, New York Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig RJ (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev 41:322–338 Wittenbaum GM, Stasser G, Merry CJ (1996) Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. J Exp Soc Psychol 32:129–152 Wittenbaum GM, Stasser G, Vaughan SI (1998) Coordination in task-performing groups. In: Tindale RS, Heath L, Edwards J, Posavac EJ, Bryant FB, Suarez-Balcazar Y, HendersonKing E, Myers J (eds) Theory and research on small groups. Plenum, New York

.

Chapter 5

The Role of Coordination in Preventing Harm in Healthcare Groups: Research Examples from Anaesthesia and an Integrated Model of Coordination for Action Teams in Health Care Michaela Kolbe, Michael Burtscher, Tanja Manser, Barbara K€ unzle, and Gudela Grote Abstract In this chapter we discuss the role of group coordination as a means of preventing iatrogenic harm in health care using anaesthesia teams as our forum of research. Applying the inclusive model of group coordination in Chap. 2 (see Fig. 2.5), we outline that (1) clinical performance and patient safety are functions of group coordination, (2) information and actions are key input entities of group coordination, (3) adaptation to situational demands serves as a critical coordination process, and (4) explicit and implicit coordination are essential coordination mechanisms. We will present recent findings regarding the role of each of these concepts for teamwork in health care. Combining theoretical considerations and empirical results, we will offer an integrated model of coordination for action teams in health care. The core idea of this model is that coordination can be classified along two independent dimensions (1) mechanisms such as explicit vs. implicit coordination, and (2) input entities such as behaviours (e.g. actions) and meanings (e.g. information). We suggest that the usefulness of team coordination should hence be considered with regard to this distinction.

5.1

Introduction

Group work plays a vital role in health care. In fact, many medical procedures such as surgery, emergency medicine, and anaesthesia can only be performed by groups. In these group procedures, clinical performance and patient safety are key functions

M. Kolbe (*), M. Burtscher, B. K€ unzle, and G. Grote Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Organisation, Work, Technology Group, ETH Z€urich, Kreuzplatz 5, KPL G 14, 8032 Z€ urich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] T. Manser Industrial Psychology Research Centre, School of Psychology, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, G32 William Guild Building, Aberdeen AB24 2UB, UK e-mail: [email protected]


75

76

M. Kolbe et al.

of group coordination. Anaesthesia in particular involves a variety of risks, and the consequences of potential failures may be life-threatening to the patient. Therefore, safety is valued as a prime goal, and today anaesthesia is safer than ever and acknowledged as the leading specialty in considering patient safety (Gaba 2000). Recent studies, however, have shown that incidents (e.g. breathing-circuit disconnections; Cooper et al. 2002) resulting in harm or death still occur (Catchpole et al. 2008; Gravenstein 2002). Such iatrogenic injuries – inadvertent injuries caused by or resulting from medical treatment – involve human error in about 82% of cases (Cooper et al. 2002) and are often related to breakdowns in the quality of group work, such as in communication (Arbous et al. 2001; Currie et al. 1993; Lingard et al. 2004), particularly information loss (Christian et al. 2006) and difficulties in discussing errors (Sexton et al. 2000). In this chapter we use the example of team administration of anaesthesia to discuss the role of group coordination as a means of preventing iatrogenic harm in health care. We apply the inclusive model of group coordination presented in Chap. 2 (see Fig. 2.5) that distinguishes functions, entities, and mechanisms of group coordination and specify it for the specific situations of healthcare action teams. Within the context of human factors in high-risk healthcare domains, we analyse coordination as a critical success factor and outline that (see Fig. 5.1) l l

l l

Clinical performance and patient safety are functions of group coordination Information and actions are key input entities of group coordination that respectively become information exchange and collective actions during the process of group coordination Explicit and implicit coordination are essential coordination mechanisms Adaptation to situational demands serves as a critical coordination process

This chapter is organized as follows: We begin by outlining the functions of group coordination in anaesthesia by referring to studies showing that breakdowns Explicit mechanisms

Information exchange Group task: e.g. performing an induction of general anaesthesia

Adaptability

Clinical performance

Patient safety Joint actions

Implicit mechanisms

Fig. 5.1 Coordination in healthcare action teams as an interplay of entities, mechanisms, process, and functions

5 The Role of Coordination in Preventing Harm in Healthcare Groups

77

in the quality of coordination are responsible for impaired clinical performance. We then illustrate the main input entities, processes, and mechanisms of medical group coordination, giving examples from our research in anaesthesia. Combining these considerations, we propose an integrated model of coordination for action teams in health care. We conclude by discussing respective further research needs as well as implications for training programmes and clinical practice.

5.2

Groups in Anaesthesia

Anaesthesia can be regarded as a classic small-group performance situation. In the analysis of teamwork, common functional models suggest three levels of focus: individual, group, and context (Ilgen et al. 2005). We will analyse characteristics of teamwork in anaesthesia groups with regard to these three levels. In routine cases, groups in anaesthesia typically consist of an anaesthesia nurse and an anaesthesia resident physician. An attending physician is on standby and available during the course of the anaesthetic procedure. In a non-routine case, more members – for instance, the attending physician on standby and/or additional nurses – can join the group.1 One of the most significant characteristics of anaesthesia groups is their structure as a crew (Arrow et al. 2000; Gaba 1994; Tschan et al. 2006; Webber and Klimoski 2004) or action team (Manser 2009). Action teams are “highly skilled specialist teams cooperating in brief performance events that require improvisation in unpredictable circumstances” (Sundstrom et al. 1990, p. 121). Thus, anaesthesia teams2 often have no previous experience of working together and almost no formal training in teamwork, two circumstances that greatly challenge effective coordination. Further characteristics of anaesthesia teams refer to the individual team members as well as the context level in which the team operates, which will be specified subsequently. At the level of the individual team member, anaesthesia team members are characterized by technical and non-technical competence (Fletcher et al. 2003), heterogeneous knowledge (Rosen et al. 2008), and high work commitment (Nyssen et al. 2003). Individual differences regarding these factors, especially between physicians and nurses who receive different training, are very likely to affect communication culture and approaches to team coordination. At the context level, two significant factors influence teamwork in anaesthesia: First, the teams operate in hospitals – highly structured, high-risk organization. In such environments, errors may have serious consequences and therefore make safety one of the top priorities (e.g. Baker et al. 2006). This challenging structural aspect is exacerbated by the fact that anaesthesia teams are embedded in the context of an 1

Anaesthesia group composition depends on the surgical procedure and can vary across countries. For ease of reading, we will use the term “anaesthesia team” instead of “anaesthesia action team” throughout this chapter. 2

78

M. Kolbe et al.

overall operating room team. The operating room team consists of several sub-teams that need to coordinate their joint work: nursing, surgery, and anaesthesia (Gaba 1994). It can be considered a multi-system team, which is defined as consisting of “two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to environmental contingencies towards the accomplishment of collective goals” (Mathieu et al. 2001, p. 290). As a consequence, team coordination does not only occur within the anaesthesia team, but also within and among the multi-system teams, giving rise to potential inter-team conflicts and errors. A second important context factor lies in the task of anaesthesia itself. As Gaba (1994, pp. 198–199) points out: “The dominant features of the anaesthetist’s environment include a combination of extreme dynamism, intense time pressure, high complexity, frequent uncertainty, and palpable risk. This combination is considerably different from that encountered in most medical fields”. Anaesthesia involves constant attention to a range of tasks (Leedal and Smith 2007; Weinger and Englund 1990), which hold planning (e.g. planning the correct amount of a certain medication), intellectual (e.g. finding the correct reason for suddenly rising blood pressure), decision making (e.g. deciding on the right time for intubation), psycho-motor performance (e.g. laryngoscopy), and mixed-motive components (e.g. choosing between the surgeon’s request to proceed with the operation and the need to further stabilize the patient). Additionally, anaesthesia is influenced by less than completely predictable patients as well as by a variety of external (e.g. noise, temperature, lighting, and other workplace constraints) and human (interpersonal relations, fatigue and sleep deprivation, boredom, workload, and task characteristics) factors (Weinger and Englund 1990). The dynamism of anaesthesia is reflected in rapid shifts from executing routine procedures to handling critical situations. This shift is defined in the literature by the occurrence of nonroutine events – events perceived by care providers or skilled observers to be unusual (Weinger and Slagle 2002) – and that pose unusual challenges to anaesthesia teams. These events refer not only to critical incidents but also to a broad range of events that might not lead to immediate adverse outcomes but nevertheless could be early indicators of later adverse incidents (Oken et al. 2007; Wacker et al. 2008). We will now outline two functions of group coordination in health care (see Fig. 5.1), referring to studies showing how breakdowns in the quality of coordination are responsible for impaired clinical performance.

5.3

Functions of Group Coordination in Anaesthesia

As suggested by the functional perspective of teamwork (Hackman and Morris 1975; Marks et al. 2001; Wittenbaum et al. 2004), the characteristics of anaesthesia teams described above (e.g. action team structure, role-specific team member training, being embedded in complex OR teams, dynamic and risky coordination task) influence clinical performance via the interaction process of the anaesthesia team members. This interaction requires coordination in order to perform safe and effective patient treatment (Dickinson and McIntyre 1997; Rosen et al. 2008;


79

Tschan et al. 2006). From an action regulation perspective, coordination mechanisms are considered important for regulating task-related collaborative behaviours and team performance within task execution (Rousseau et al. 2006). As Steiner (1972) pointed out, teams rarely achieve their potential performance, and as Stroebe and Frey (1982) pointed out, they frequently suffer from process losses due to a lack in team member motivation and coordination. Given that anaesthesia is usually performed by teams that are in turn embedded in a complex multi-team system (i.e. operating room teams), the risk of iatrogenic errors occurring at the team level is increased (e.g. failures to communicate, communication misunderstandings, nonshared terminology or procedural definitions). For instance, team communication failure was found to be a factor contributing to drug error (Abeysekera et al. 2005), surgical injuries (Greenberg et al. 2007; Zingg et al. 2008), and operating room team functioning (Lingard et al. 2004). In an interview study, Gawande and colleagues found that one of “the most commonly cited system factors contributing to errors were [. . .] communication breakdowns among personnel (43%)” (Gawande et al. 2003, p. 614). The importance of non-technical skills such as communication and teamwork for good anaesthetic practice has been highlighted by other research as well (Fletcher et al. 2002). Giving further credence to this point is the increasing number of studies on human factors in various operating room teams that have stressed the role of team coordination for maintaining patient safety (see Manser 2009 for a review). Thus, managing errors and preventing iatrogenic harm are the main coordination functions of team coordination in anaesthesia. They are classified as coordination functions (see Fig. 2.5) because they define the overall performance objectives of the anaesthesia process. By applying the functional perspective on teamwork (Hackman and Morris 1975; Healey et al. 2004; Marks et al. 2001; Wittenbaum et al. 2004), we consider patient safety and clinical performance to be the most significant outcomes of the anaesthesia procedure, influenced by the variety of interrelated factors outlined above. In the following section we discuss two entities to be coordinated while performing anaesthesia that are pivotal for meeting these objections of patient safety and clinical performance.

5.4

Information Exchange and Joint Actions Within Anaesthesia Groups

Coordination is a constituent component of team work (Brannick and Prince 1997) and has been defined as “orchestrating the sequence and the timing of interdependent actions” (Marks et al. 2001, p. 363). However, it is not only the coordination of the input entity actions but also the coordination of the input entity information (e.g. sharing information regarding the patient or the drug that has just been administered) that is essential for clinical performance (Arrow et al. 2000). Thus, joint actions and information exchange are key objectives that have to be achieved by coordination (see Figs. 5.1 and 5.2). The exchange of information and the joining of actions occur in the process stage of the inclusive IPO (input–process–output)

80

M. Kolbe et al. MECHANISM Explicit Explicit action coordination (e.g. leadership such as giving instructions, speaking up)

Explicit information coordination (e.g. leadership such as requesting information, information evaluation)

Adaptation

ENTITY

Information

Actions Adaptability

Implicit action coordination (e.g. action-related talking to the room, team monitoring, team mental models)

Implicit information coordination (e.g. information-related talking to the room, transactive memory) Implicit

Fig. 5.2 Integrated model of coordination for action teams in health care

model of group coordination (Fig. 2.5). As sharing information and discussing its implications for the current task are pivotal for collective sense-making during crisis situations (Waller and Uitdewilligen 2008), coordination of these subtasks is necessary because important information is often unshared before initiating anaesthesia and has to be obtained in-process from various sources, including the patient, other team members, written notes, and the different monitors in the operating room. Also, physicians and nurses differ in their information-gathering behaviour (Thuilliez et al. 2005). Unfortunately, as known from research on team information processing, teams are often less than perfect at sharing relevant information (Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch 2009; Stasser and Titus 1985), confirmed by the frequently reported incidents in anaesthesia of failure to appropriately communicate relevant information (e.g. patient allergies) to all team members at a time (preprocess) and in a fashion (explicitly) when problems could be avoided (Catchpole et al. 2008). Bogenst€atter et al. (2009) showed for resuscitation teams that information transmitted within the team was only partly reliable and concluded that physicians and nurses should be trained in explicit coordination in the sense of standardized communication procedures.


81

Action coordination refers to the management of joint actions, which are defined activities in which two or more participants have to coordinate with each other in order to succeed. Action coordination involves the timing and sequencing of interdependent activities. For example, a cardiac arrest requires the team members to quickly decide which drug(s), by whom, and when to be administered, who will perform a precordial thump, who will call for additional help, who will take the lead, and who will monitor the progress. This involves team members acting in and sometimes outside their respective roles (e.g. resident as responsible leader and nurse as assistant), backing each other up when necessary (Clark 1999). The distinction between information exchange and joint actions as two discrete coordination entities has already been acknowledged in taxonomies of coordination behaviour in anaesthesia teams. For example, the taxonomy for explicit and implicit team coordination and heedful interrelating behaviour (Kolbe et al. 2009) includes two main categories: (1) coordination of information exchange and (2) coordination of action within each explicit and implicit mechanism. Similarly, Manser and her colleagues’ observation system for coordination behaviour in anaesthesia crews distinguishes between information management and task management (Manser et al. 2008; 2009a, b). While the former category includes activities related to information sharing (e.g. “information request”), the latter refers to the coordination of team actions (e.g. “prioritizing”). To coordinate joint actions and information exchange, teams can use two basic mechanisms: explicit and implicit coordination (see Fig. 4.1 as well as the mechanism section in Fig. 2.5). This common dichotomy (e.g. Chaps. 4 and 6) will be outlined in the following section.

5.5

Explicit and Implicit Coordination Mechanisms

In this section we will discuss explicit and implicit coordination mechanisms, including their related concepts of leadership and shared mental models (see Fig. 5.2). Depending on characteristics of both the team and the situation, the timing and nature of these mechanisms can vary in how beneficial they are to performance.

5.5.1

Explicit Coordination

Coordination behaviour can be regarded as explicit when it is intentionally used for coordination purposes and expressed in an unequivocal manner that is usually plain and easy to understand (Espinosa et al. 2004; Kolbe and Boos 2009; see also Chaps. 4 and 11; Serfaty and Kleinman 1990; Wittenbaum et al. 1998). Typical examples of explicit coordination include defining rules to standardize behaviour in advance (e.g. in case of emergency, call a staff anaesthetist), requesting information (e.g. information on patient allergies), or giving instructions (e.g. instructions regarding drug administration). Another classic example of explicitness is closed-loop

82

M. Kolbe et al.

communication – the acknowledged exchange of information between a sender and a receiver. For example, a physician’s instructions regarding administering a specific amount of a specific drug are frequently acknowledged by the respective nurse (e.g. “Okay”) or affirmed when executed (e.g. “0.2 Fentanyl given”). As such, explicitness can serve as a double-check, preventing failures in information transfer and facilitating doing the right thing in the right situation. Related research has shown that explicit coordination in terms of strategic planning has been triggered by resource inadequacy or time pressure (Xiao et al. 2004) and that it has proven to be a successful strategy during non-routine events for healthcare teams treating cardiac arrest (Marsch et al. 2004; see also Chap. 6). Leadership is another example of personal and mostly explicit coordination, with team leaders being responsible for effective coordination and the creation of shared team cognition (Salas et al. 2001). Teams operating in critical care need directive, task-oriented, as well as relationship-oriented leadership in order to effectively complete the task and to keep members both calm and functioning (K€unzle et al. 2010). In healthcare action teams, however, directive, task-based leadership behaviour – as opposed to interpersonal or developing behaviour – is most critical for task fulfilment (K€ unzle 2003; Zala-Mez€ o et al. 2004). These teams inherently share motivation and have a clear common goal – to save patients’ lives – and therefore do not require long-term functions of leadership such as developing strategies or building trust (Klein et al. 2006; Zala-Mez€o et al. 2004). This view is in line with the substitutes for leadership theory suggesting that a pressing and important task might substitute or eliminate the need for a motivating leader (Kerr and Jermier 1978). This has indeed been found for anaesthesia teams: The amount of leadership increased significantly during non-routine, high-taskload situations, while it was significantly reduced if the level of standardization was high (e.g. Grote et al. 2003; Klein et al. 2006; K€ unzle et al. in press; Zala-Mez€o et al. 2009). The main drawback of explicit coordination is that it is costly in terms of communicative effort and time – both limitedly available during non-routine situations. Given that non-routine events are ill-defined situations with high levels of uncertainty and time pressure, they might require but not allow for explicitness. Alternatively, explicit coordination can be used early during the team process to establish a shared understanding of the team and the task and thus facilitate later implicitness (Orasanu 1993, see also Chap. 10). Implicit coordination, with its potential for efficiency, and its main prerequisite – team mental models – are the focus of the following section.

5.5.2

Implicit Coordination

In contrast to the directive and verbal nature of explicitness, implicitness relies on the anticipation of actions and needs of the other team members and the subsequent adjustment of their own behaviour accordingly (Entin and Serfaty 1999; Grote et al. 2003; MacMillan et al. 2004; Rico et al. 2008; Toups and Kerne 2007; Wittenbaum et al. 1996, 1998). In fact, some researchers equate the level of implicit coordination


83

with the level of team effectiveness (Stachowski et al. 2009). Although we consider implicit coordination highly relevant for team performance, we still regard it as a process rather than an outcome factor. In anaesthesia some procedures, such as intubation, are highly standardized and allow for team members to predict the behaviour of their colleagues. For example, nurses can directly observe the behaviour of the physician, anticipate when their assistance is needed, and then provide unsolicited information or action accordingly (Kolbe et al. 2009). This tacit management is frequently regarded as the ideal way of coordination (Zala-Mez€ o et al. 2004), particularly when the patient is still awake (Hindmarsh and Pilnick 2002). It can, however, only be successful if both physician and nurse have an accurate and shared team mental model (TMM). That is, they need a common understanding of their task and a mutual agreement regarding the steps that are to be taken in a certain situation. In the context of anaesthesia, that means, for instance, that both nurse and resident have a shared understanding of which drugs are to be administered in the course of the induction, who has the leadership role, and what is to be done in case of emergency. The importance of an TMM for team performance is emphasized in many current theoretical approaches to teamwork (for a review, see Chap. 9). In general, a positive correlation between the degree of “sharedness” amongst team members and the team’s performance is assumed. Current studies in other high-risk industries such as aviation and the military support this view (Lim and Klein 2006; SmithJentsch et al. 2005). Because TMMs are related to team communication and coordination (Gurtner et al. 2007; Marks et al. 2002), this means that if both the anaesthesia resident and the nurse have an TMM, they will not have to discuss drug administration at length and will therefore save the time and effort costs distracted from the task at hand. Without an TMM, they would have to compensate by explicitly coordinating the medication process, which, due to its costs, could conceivably heighten the risk of iatrogenic injuries. That said, thus far there is only little empirical evidence for postulated relationships among TMM, implicit coordination, and performance in medical teams (Burtscher and Manser submitted). However, the findings of Michinov et al. (2008) showed that transactive memory systems, a concept related to TMM in terms of knowing who knows what, predicted anaesthesia team member perceptions of team effectiveness and also affective outcomes such as team identification and job satisfaction. More recent work in anaesthesia has also addressed the function of implicit coordination processes as a mediator of the relationship between TMM and objective medical team performance by proposing a anaesthesia-specific measurement tool based on concept mapping (Burtscher et al. 2009). In view of the above distinctions – explicit vs. implicit and information exchange vs. joint actions – anaesthesia teams face the challenge of prioritizing which entity and mechanism is most important in a given situation. Since time and resources are limited, when team members are not able to perform all entities and mechanisms simultaneously, they instead need to constantly adapt their coordination behaviours to the demands of the situation. The importance of adaptation as team process will be outlined in the following section.

84

5.6

M. Kolbe et al.

Adaptation as a Key Coordination Process

The relevance of coordination entities and the appropriateness of coordination mechanisms are not stable and change relative to the situation – an idea similar to contingency models of human leadership (e.g. Burke et al. 2006; Entin and Serfaty 1999; Fiedler 1964; Grote et al. 2003, 2010; Rico et al. 2008; Salas et al. 2007a, b). Thus, to provide safe and efficient patient care, medical teams need to adapt quickly to changing situational demands such as the occurrence of non-routine events (see Fig. 5.2). Adaptation as such is generated by the team’s “response to actual or anticipated changes in the embedding contexts” (McGrath and Tschan 2004, p. 6). In particular, task uncertainty, standardization, and time pressure are situational constraints stimulating dynamic changes in team coordination behaviour (Grote et al. 2010; Serfaty and Entin 2002). As Ballard et al. (2008, p. 339) noted that “group processes may be divided through the occurrence of critical events”, coordination mechanisms that may be effective during routine work may hence not be effective during non-routine events (Gersick and Hackman 1990; Waller 1999). Even within a single non-routine situation, certain behaviours might only be relevant during a very specific sub-phase. For example, in the study on leadership during the management of a cardiac arrest, Tschan et al. (2006) showed that the amount of leadership of the incoming resident mattered only during the first 30 s. In contrast to long-term, quasi-permanent adjustment of performance strategies, adaptation in action teams involves very quick changes in coordination behaviour within a single episodic or task cycle vs. from one episode to another (Marks et al. 2001). These quick changes require that the team members constantly know what is going on during the task cycle and regularly evaluate and adapt to the current situation. Several studies have shown that anaesthesia teams effectively adapt to situational demands by adjusting the time they spend on task and information management (Burtscher et al. 2010; Manser et al. 2008, 2009a, b) and by adjusting the appropriate level of explicitness (Kolbe et al. under review; Zala-Mez€o et al. 2009). These findings indicate that adaptation is fundamental to establishing safety (Salas et al. 2007a, b). However, there is also an ongoing discussion that adaptability is still a rather elusive and ill-defined concept within the psychological literature (e.g. Pulakos et al. 2000). Recent studies are attempting to deal with this issue by descriptively depicting the dynamics of adaptive interaction patterns (Grote et al. 2010; Stachowski et al. 2009).

5.7

An Integrated Model of Coordination for Action Teams in Health Care

Having reported various empirical results regarding team coordination and its effects on safety and performance in health care, we need to relate these various findings to each other in order to get a more concise picture of team coordination in


85

health care and to enable us to make predictions regarding the appropriateness of coordination mechanisms in specific task circumstances. Although existing models of team coordination point out that the degree of explicitness should adjust according to task demands and that TMMs are a basis for implicit coordination (e.g. Rico et al. 2008; Wittenbaum et al. 1998), they do not specifically differentiate coordination entities nor the particular characteristics of action teams. Applying the inclusive model of group coordination (Fig. 2.5), we attempt to make an initial step in filling this gap by proposing a specific model for systematizing coordination mechanisms in healthcare action teams and interlinking the coordination input entities (what is coordinated?), coordination mechanisms (how is it coordinated?), and coordination process (adaptation). When discussing the role of team coordination as a means of preventing iatrogenic harm, we showed that clinical performance and patient safety are key functions of team coordination; information and actions are the entities of team coordination; explicit coordination (including leadership) and implicit coordination (including TMM) are essential coordination mechanisms; and adaptation to situational demands serves as a critical coordination process. Yet the question remains: How are these concepts of coordination interrelated? Assuming that information exchange and collective actions, adaptation, and explicit and implicit mechanisms operate in an interrelated manner to establish safe performance as the overall function, we propose an integrated model that regards entities and mechanisms as two independent dimensions and adaptation as the interlinking process (Fig. 5.2). Within this model, each coordination act can be classified along two independent dimensions: entity (information vs. action) and mechanism (explicit vs. implicit). That is, these entities refer to the question of what has to be coordinated, while the mechanisms describe how it can be coordinated. The resulting two-by-two matrix with the four quadrants3 represents different coordination styles as systematized by the Coordination Mechanism Circumplex Model (see Chap. 4): Explicit action coordination includes explicit coordination acts that aim at coordinating joint actions. Explicit information coordination, on the other hand, includes communicative acts that explicitly aim at managing the information processing within the team. Both “styles” can be associated with leadership behaviours. On the other side of the spectrum, team cognition – team mental models and transactive memory – provides the basis for implicit coordination. Thereby, implicit information coordination includes acts for tacitly managing team information processing. Finally, implicit action coordination includes acts that facilitate action coordination via mutual anticipation. Adaptation refers to the process of regulating these different coordination styles, for example, by switching from one style to another. As we and others have illustrated, in many settings it is crucial to adapt to changing situational and task demands; different situations require different styles of coordination. As a

3

Although these dimensions represent continua instead of dichotomies, for ease of presentation we will discuss four styles of coordination located at the extreme of the continua.

86

M. Kolbe et al.

consequence, in order to realize the key functions of team coordination – clinical performance and patient safety – teams have to balance their coordination style via the process of adaptation. This integrated model specific to healthcare groups (and potentially to those in other high-risk industries) can be used to analyse the interplay of explicit and implicit coordination which should be considered with regard to the respective coordination entity. It allows us to make predictions regarding the usefulness of coordination styles in a given situation where either information exchange or joint actions (or both) are pivotal. We will illustrate this with an example of a routine induction of general anaesthesia with an unexpected occurrence of a cardiac arrest as a non-routine event, which was part of a simulator-based study on adaptive team coordination (Kolbe et al. under review; see example below). Example: Adaptive Coordination During the Management of a Cardiac Arrest Anaesthesia induction is the first step in all operations requiring general anaesthesia and – compared to other tasks involved in the anaesthetic process – is very coordination-demanding (Phipps et al. 2008). An induction starts with preparing the patient and equipment and injecting drugs to anaesthetize and paralyze the patient. Once the patient shows no voluntary muscle movement, a tube is inserted into the patient’s trachea using direct laryngoscopy.4 As these steps are highly standardized, we assumed that during this non-routine phase, team members (Hypothesis 1) – Would require only limited explicit action coordination and could be managed by relying on team mental models and thus on implicit action coordination, – Would still require higher levels of explicit information coordination in order to effectively process relevant information about the status of the patient and his or her reaction to the administered drugs. In the study mentioned above (Kolbe et al. under review), the simulation continued with an asystole (cardiac arrest) during laryngoscopy. A sudden cardiac arrest is a rarely occurring but time-critical and life-threatening non-routine situation in anaesthesia. It can, however, be unambiguously diagnosed (visible flat line on monitor with electrodes properly fixed) and handled (administering atropine, chest compressions). For this non-routine emergency situation, we assumed that (Hypothesis 2) (continued)

4 During laryngoscopy, vocal cords are directly visualized with the laryngoscope blade. A light beam from the blade tip facilitates the introduction of a plastic tube through the mouth into the trachea under visual control (orotracheal intubation).


87

– Explicit information coordination such as verbally requesting, providing, and verifying information might not be the most effective coordination method because it requires time and effort, which are not available, – Team members in a high-risk non-routine event such as this better coordinate their information exchange using the implicit information coordination style such as gathering and sharing information without being asked, – The actual management of action steps – who is doing what at what time – would still require higher levels of explicitness because of the unfamiliarity of the situation. Here, the explicit action coordination style might be most appropriate. Indeed, an analysis of coordination behaviour showed that both residents and nurses showed significantly higher levels of explicit action coordination during the management of the cardiac arrest than during the initial routine situation. It was also found, as predicted, that explicit information coordination decreased in the transition from the routine to the non-routine situation. The level of implicit action coordination was high in both phases but significantly increased further during the management of the cardiac arrest, indicating that anaesthesia teams use means of explicit as well as implicit action coordination during such a non-routine situation. Levels of implicit information coordination were generally low and did not change in relation to the cardiac arrest.

As shown in the example, the integrated model of coordination for action teams in health care can be used to make differential predictions regarding the usefulness of explicit and implicit coordination mechanisms with respect to the management of joint actions and processing of information and thus help to clarify previous inconsistent findings on their respective efficiency in non-routine situations (e.g. Entin and Serfaty 1999; Tschan et al. 2006).

5.8

Directions for Future Research

Using the example of anaesthesia, in this chapter we discussed the role of team coordination as a means of preventing iatrogenic harm to patients. We applied the inclusive model of group coordination presented in Chap. 2 (Fig. 2.5) to the specific situation of healthcare action teams. We specified that in healthcare teams, clinical performance and patient safety are key functions of group coordination; information and actions are entities of group coordination; explicit coordination (including leadership) and implicit coordination (including team mental models) are essential coordination mechanisms; and adaptation to situational demands serves as a critical coordination process. We outlined the relationships among these concepts and

88

M. Kolbe et al.

proposed an integrated model of coordination for action teams in health care (Fig. 5.2). The core idea of this model is that coordination can be classified along two independent dimensions: entity (actions vs. information) and mechanism (explicit vs. implicit coordination). The usefulness of team coordination should hence be considered with regard to this distinction. Different coordination tools such as TMM or leadership can be assigned accordingly and their functionality can be judged with regard to task requirements and constraints. For example, an unexpected crisis situation may call for explicit coordination of information (Bogenst€atter et al. 2009), and thus leadership behaviour will likely be more appropriate than implicit coordination based on an TMM. We are convinced that theoretical models of coordination in healthcare teams are necessary not only to guide future research but also to enable the development of training curricula that will improve team performance and patient safety, perhaps even rendering helpful coordination paradigms transferable to other high-risk industries.

References Abeysekera A, Bergman IJ, Kluger MT, Short TG (2005) Drug error in anaesthetic practice: a review of 896 reports from the Australian Incident Monitoring Study database. Anaesthesia 60:220–227 Arbous MS, Grobee DE, van Kleef JW, de Lange JJ, Spoormans HHAJM, Touw P, Werner FM, Meursing AEE (2001) Mortality associated with anaesthesia: a qualitative analysis to identify risk factors. Anaesthesia 56:1141–1153 Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL (2000) Small groups as complex systems: formation, coordination, development, and adaption. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Baker DP, Days R, Salas E (2006) Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Serv Res 41:1576–1598 Ballard DI, Tschan F, Waller MJ (2008) All in the timing: considering time at multiple stages of group research. Small Group Res 39:328–351 Bogenst€atter Y, Tschan F, Semmer NK, Spychiger M, Breuer M, Marsch SU (2009) How accurate is information transmitted to medical professionals joining a medical emergency? A simulator study. Hum Factors 51:115–125 Brannick MT, Prince C (1997) An overview of team performance measurement. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance assessment and measurement theory, methods, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 3–16 Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E (2006) Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol 91:1189–1207 Burtscher MJ, Manser T (under revision) Assessment of shared mental models in different teamwork settings: a review and implications for future research Burtscher MJ, Wacker J, Sevdalis N, Manser T (2009) Shared mental models in healthcare – Development and testing of a measurement tool. 15th Annual Meeting of Society in Europe for Simulation Applied to Medicine (SESAM), Mainz Burtscher MJ, Wacker J, Grote G, Manser T (2010) Managing non-routine events in anesthesia: the role of adaptive coordination. Hum Factors. Human Factors Advance online publication Catchpole K, Bell MDD, Johnson S (2008) Safety on anaesthesia: a study of 12606 reported incidents from the UK National Reporting and Learning System. Anaesthesia 63:340–346


89

Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, Sheridan TB, Gandhi TK, Dwyer K, Zinner MJ, Dierks MM (2006) A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 139:159–173 Clark HH (1999) On the origins of conversation. Verbum 21:147–161 Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD, McPeek B (2002) Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. Qual Saf Health Care 11:277–283 Currie M, Mackay P, Morgen C, Runciman WB, Russell WJ, Sellen A, Webb RK, Williamson JA (1993) The “wrong drug” problem in anaesthesia: an analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive Care 21:596–601 Dickinson TL, McIntyre RM (1997) A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance assessment and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 19–43 Entin EE, Serfaty D (1999) Adaptive team coordination. Hum Factors 41:312–325 Espinosa A, Lerch FJ, Kraut RE (2004) Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: one size does not fit all. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 107–129 Fiedler FE (1964) A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York, pp 149–190 Fletcher GCL, McGeorge P, Flin RH, Glavin RJ, Maran NJ (2002) The role of non-technical skills in anaesthesia: a review of current literature. Brit J Anaesth 88:418–429 Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R (2003) Anaesthetists’ non-technical skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Brit J Anaesth 90:580–588 Gaba DM (1994) Human error in dynamic medical domains. In: Bogner MS (ed) Human error in medicine. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 197–224 Gaba DM (2000) Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in health care. Brit Med J 320:785–788 Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133:614–621 Gersick C, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Dec 47:65–97 Gravenstein JS (2002) Safety in anesthesia. Anaesthesist 51:754–759 Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Rogers SO, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA (2007) Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surgeons 204:533–540 Grote G, Zala-Mez€o E, Grommes P (2003) Effects of standardization on coordination and communication in high workload situations. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 12:127–155 Grote G, Kolbe M, Zala-Mez€ o E, Bienefeld-Seall N, K€ unzle B (2010) Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics 52:211–228 Gurtner A, Tschan F, Semmer NK, N€agele C (2007) Getting groups to develop good strategies: effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organ Behav Hum Dec 102:127–142 Hackman JR, Morris CG (1975) Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York, pp 45–99 Healey AN, Undre S, Vincent CA (2004) Developing observational measures of performance in surgical teams. Qual Saf Health Care 13:33–40 Hindmarsh J, Pilnick A (2002) The tacit order of teamwork: collaboration and embodied conduct in anaesthesia. Sociol Quart 43:139–164 Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations: from input-processoutput models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psychol 56:517–543 Kerr S, Jermier JM (1978) Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organ Behav Hum Perf 22:375–403

90

M. Kolbe et al.

Klein KJ, Ziegert JC, Knight AP, Xiao Y (2006) Dynamic delegation: shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Admin Sci Quart 51:590–621 Kolbe M, Boos M (2009) Facilitating group decision-making: Facilitator’s subjective theories on group coordination Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901287 Kolbe M, K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Wacker J, Grote G (2009) Measuring coordination behaviour in anaesthesia teams during induction of general anaesthetics. In: Flin R, Mitchell L (eds) Safer surgery: analysing behaviour in the operating theatre. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 203–221 Kolbe M, K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Wacker J, Spahn DR, Grote G (under review) Adaptive coordination during emergency situations: Is implicit or explicit more effective? K€ unzle B (2003) Teamprozesse und Koordination im An€asthesieteam [Team processes and coordination in the anaesthesia team]. University of Zurich, Lizenziatsarbeit K€ unzle B, Kolbe M, Grote G (2010) Ensuring patient safety through effective leadership behaviour: a literature review. Safety Sci 48:1–17 K€unzle B, Zala-Mez€ o E, Kolbe M, Wacker J, Grote G (in press) Substitutes for leadership in anaesthesia teams and their impact on leadership effectiveness. Eur J Work Organ Psy Leedal JM, Smith AF (2007) Methodological approaches to anaesthetists’ workload in the operating theatre. Brit J Anaesth 94:702–709 Lim B-C, Klein K-J (2006) Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. J Organ Behav 27:403–418 Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, Regehr G, Baker GR, Reznick R, Bohnen J, Orser B, Doran D, Grober E (2004) Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 13:330–334 MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D (2004) Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 61–82 Manser T (2009) Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a review of the literature. Acta Anaesth Scand 53:143–151 Manser T, Howard SK, Gaba DM (2008) Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: a study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics 51:1153–1178 Manser T, Harrison TK, Gaba DM, Howard SK (2009a) Coordination patterns related to high clinical performance in a simulated anesthetic crisis. Anesth Analg 108:1606–1615 Manser T, Howard SK, Gaba DM (2009b) Identifying characteristics of effective teamwork in complex medical work environments: adaptive crew coordination in anaesthesia. In: Flin R, Mitchell L (eds) Safer surgery: analysing behaviour in the operating theatre. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 223–239 Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manage Rev 26:356–376 Marks MA, Sabella MJ, Burke CS, Zaccaro SJ (2002) The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol 87:3–13 Marsch SCU, M€uller C, Marquardt K, Conrad G, Tschan F, Hunziker PR (2004) Human factors affect the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in simulated cardiac arrests. Resuscitation 60:51–56 Mathieu JE, Marks MA, Zaccaro S-J (2001) Multi-team systems. In: Anderson N, Ones D, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C (eds) International handbook of work and organizational psychology. Sage, London, pp 289–313 McGrath JE, Tschan F (2004) Temporal matters in social psychology. Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: a metaanalysis. J Appl Psychol 94:535–546 Michinov E, Olivier-Chiron E, Rusch E, Chiron B (2008) Influence of transactive memory on perceived performance, job satisfaction and identification in anaesthesia teams. Brit J Anaesth 100:327–332


91

Nyssen AS, Hansez I, Baele P, Lamy M, De Keyser V (2003) Occupational stress and burnout in anaesthesia. Brit J Anaesth 90:333–337 Oken A, Rasmusson MD, Slagle JM, Jain S, Kuykendall T, Ordonez N, Weinger MB (2007) A facilitated survey instrument captures significantly more anesthesia events than does traditional voluntary event reporting. Anesthesiology 107:909–922 Orasanu JM (1993) Decision-making in the cockpit. In: Wiener EL, Kanki BG, Helmreich RL (eds) Cockpit ressource management. Academic, San Diego, pp 137–172 Phipps D, Meakin GH, Beatty PCW, Nsoedo C, Parker D (2008) Human factors in anaesthetic practice: insights from a task analysis. Brit J Anaesth 100:333–343 Pulakos ED, Arad S, Donovan MA, Plamondon KE (2000) Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. J Appl Psychol 85:612–624 Rico R, Sańchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C (2008) Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge-based approach. Acad Manage Rev 33:163–184 Rosen MA, Salas E, Wilson KA, King HB, Salisbury ML, Augenstein JS, Robinson DW, Birnbach DJ (2008) Measuring team performance in simulation-based training: adopting best practices for healthcare. Simul Healthcare 3:33–41 Rousseau V, Aube´ C, Savoie A (2006) Teamwork behaviors: a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Res 37:540–570 Salas E, Bowers C, Edens E (2001) Improving teamwork in organizations: application of resource management training. Laurence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ Salas E, Nichols DR, Driskell JE (2007a) Testing three team training strategies in intact teams. A meta-analysis. Small Group Res 38:471–488 Salas E, Rosen MA, King H (2007b) Managing teams managing crisis: principles of teamwork to improve patient safety in the emergency room and beyond. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 8:381–394 Serfaty D, Entin EE (2002) Team adaptation and coordination training. In: Flin R, Salas E, Strub M, Martin C (eds) Decision making under stress: emerging themes and applications. Ashgate, Alderhot, UK, pp 170–184 Serfaty D, Kleinman DL (1990) Adaptation processes in team decisionmaking and coordination. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. IEEE, Los Angeles, pp 394–395 Sexton JB, Thomas EJ, Helmreich RL (2000) Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. Brit Med J 320:745–749 Smith-Jentsch KA, Mathieu JE, Kraiger K (2005) Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models on safety and efficiency in a field setting. J Appl Psychol 90:523–535 Stachowski AA, Kaplan SA, Waller MJ (2009) The benefits of flexible team interaction during crisis. J Appl Psychol 94:1536–1543 Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1467–1578 Steiner ID (1972) Group processes and productivity. Academic, New York Stroebe W, Frey BS (1982) Self-interest and collective action: the economics and psychology of public goods. Brit J Soc Psychol 21:121–137 Sundstrom E, de Meuse KP, Futrell D (1990) Work teams. Applications and effectiveness. Am Psychol 45:120–133 Thuilliez H, Anceaux F, Hoc J-M (2005) Roˆle de l’ope´rateur et du statut fonctionnel des informations lors de la prise d’informations en anesthe´sie [in French]. Le Travail Humain 68:225–252 Toups ZO, Kerne A (2007) Implicit coordination in firefighting practice: design implications for teaching fire emergency responders. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 707–716 Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gautschi D, Hunziker P, Spychiger M, Marsch SU (2006) Leading to recovery: group performance and coordinative activities in medical emergency driven groups. Hum Perform 19:277–304 Wacker J, Kleeb B, K€ unzle B, Leisinger E, Kobler A, Kolbe M, Manser T, Burtscher M, Spahn DR, Grote G (2008) High incidence of non-routine events during standard anesthesia

92

M. Kolbe et al.

inductions: a prospective analysis of synchronized video and vital parameter recordings. Annual Conference of the Swiss Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Fribourg, Switzerland Waller MJ (1999) The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Acad Manage J 42:127–137 Waller MJ, Uitdewilligen S (2008) Talking to the room. Collective sensemaking during crisis situations. In: Roe RA, Waller MJ, Clegg SR (eds) Time in organizational research. Oxford, Routledge, pp 186–203 Webber SS, Klimoski RJ (2004) Crews: a distinct type of work team. J Bus Psychol 18:261–279 Weinger MB, Englund CE (1990) Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment. Anesthesiology 73:995–1021 Weinger MB, Slagle J (2002) Human factors research in anesthesia patient safety: techniques to elucidate factors affecting clinical task performance and decision making. J Amer Med Assoc 9:58–63 Wittenbaum GM, Stasser G, Merry CJ (1996) Tacit coordination in anticipation of small group task completion. J Exp Soc Psychol 32:129–152 Wittenbaum GM, Vaughan SI, Stasser G (1998) Coordination in task-performing groups. In: Tindale RS, Heath L, Edwards J, Posavac EJ, Bryant FB, Suarez-Balcazar Y, HendersonKing E, Myers J (eds) Theory and research on small groups. Plenum, New York, pp 177–204 Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Paulus PB, Hirokawa RY, Ancona DG, Peterson RS, Jehn KA, Yoon K (2004) The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Res 35:17–43 Xiao Y, Seagull FJ, Mackenzie CF, Klein K (2004) Adaptive leadership in trauma resuscitation teams: a grounded theory approach to video analysis. Cogn Tech Work 6:158–164 Zala-Mez€o E, K€unzle B, Wacker J, Grote G (2004) Zusammenarbeit in An€asthesieteams aus Sicht der Teammitglieder (Cooperation in anesthesia teams as seen by team members). Z Arbeitswiss 58:199–207 Zala-Mez€o E, Wacker J, K€ unzle B, Br€ uesch M, Grote G (2009) The influence of standardisation and task load on team coordination patterns during anaesthesia inductions. Qual Saf Health Care 18:127–130 Zingg U, Zala-Mez€o E, K€ unzle B, Licht A, Metzger U, Grote G, Platz A (2008) Evaluation of critical incidents in general surgery. Brit J Surg 95:1420–1425

Chapter 6

Developing Observational Categories for Group Process Research Based on Task and Coordination Requirement Analysis: Examples from Research on Medical Emergency-Driven Teams Franziska Tschan, Norbert K. Semmer, Maria Vetterli, Andrea Gurtner, Sabina Hunziker, and Stephan U. Marsch Abstract In this chapter, we argue that the task is an important influence for teams and that task aspects should be more explicitly, and more specifically, included in the study of team processes and team performance. Using a cardiopulmonary resuscitation task as an example, we show how an adaptation of hierarchical task analysis that assesses task requirements (taskwork) and coordination requirements (teamwork) can be useful in identifying a task’s goals and sub-goals, defining qualifiers of good goal attainment, identifying coordination requirements, and developing hypotheses about which teamwork and coordination behaviour should specifically be related to the performance of different aspects of complex tasks. Our argument is based on concepts that extend the general input–process–output model of groups.

F. Tschan (*) and M. Vetterli University of Neuchaˆtel, Institut de Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, Rue Emile Argand 11, 2000 Neuchaˆtel, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] N.K. Semmer University of Berne, Institute of Psychology, Muesmattstrasse 45, 3000 Bern 9, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] A. Gurtner Applied University of Berne, Berner Fachhochschule, Fachbereich Wirtschaft und Verwaltung, Morgartenstrasse 2c, 3014 Bern, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] S. Hunziker and S.U. Marsch Departement f€ur Innere Medizin, University Hospital of Basel, Abteilung f€ur Intensivmedizin, Kantonsspital, 4031 Basel, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]


93

94

6.1

F. Tschan et al.

Introduction

Imagine the following situation: A physician talks with a patient resting in the recovery room after a small surgical intervention related to his heart condition. The surgery went well. The doctor controls the patient’s vital signs and chats with him about an upcoming soccer game they both want to watch on television. Suddenly, the patient states that he is feeling dizzy; immediately thereafter, the patient suffers a sudden cardiac arrest, clearly visible on the surveillance monitor. The physician sounds the alarm, and by the time two other physicians rush into the room, she has already started cardiopulmonary resuscitation. She informs her colleagues that this is a cardiac arrest situation, and the three of them continue resuscitation, a complex task that is ideally performed in groups of three or four people. It is an emergency situation that has to be carried out under a lot of time pressure, as every minute of untreated cardiac arrest diminishes survival chances of a patient by 7–10% (von Planta 2004). Although all physicians undergo regular resuscitation training, previous research has revealed important performance shortcomings of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, even when performed by well-trained hospital staff (Abella et al. 2005; Ravakhah et al. 1998). These shortcomings are often related to coordination and collaboration problems (Marsch et al. 2004a, b). Thus, it seems important to analyse what hinders or enhances the performance of these teams. The authors of this chapter are an interdisciplinary team of researchers (psychologists and physicians) who collaborate in studying teams of physicians and medical students confronted with complex medical problems. For this research, we use a high-fidelity patient simulator and video-tape processes of the medical teams as they perform the tasks. The overall goal of our research is to evaluate what influences team performance in emergency medical situations in order to help craft better training methods for such teams (Hunziker et al. 2010). To achieve this goal, we need good methods to assess group performance, and we need to identify teamwork and coordination behaviour that influence performance on the tasks we study. As we study complex tasks that are performed in groups of medical specialists, we need methods applicable for the analysis of performance as well as of coordination requirements of complex tasks. In this chapter we will show how and why task analysis can be an important help in studying groups. There are a few instruments for group process analysis that are conceived as generic instruments applicable to a wide range of tasks. Their main advantage is that they suggest common categories for coding behaviour of a wide range of groups, permitting comparisons across groups and tasks. Their main disadvantages are that they either contain many categories, that may not all be of interest for specific research questions of categories for many applications (e.g. Kauffeld et al. 2009) or that the behavioural categories observed are defined in very general a way (Bales 1950; Futoran et al. 1989), limiting their application to specific tasks. Given this dilemma, in publications on current practices of group observation and analysis methods, method specialists emphasize that there is no agreed set of categories for

6 Developing Observational Categories for Group Process Research Based on Task

95

team behaviour observed in groups and suggest that researchers should choose observational categories according to their specific research question (e.g. Brett et al. 2004; McGrath and Altermatt 2001; Weingart 1997). The choice of behavioural categories may be difficult, however, especially for complex tasks. In this chapter we contribute to this issue by emphasizing the utility and importance of assessing task requirements through detailed task analysis in order to develop observational categories and to assess group performance and group coordination, especially for complex tasks. The chapter is structured as follows. First, we present the most important extensions of the general input–process–output (IPO) model of groups. Researchers who have suggested refining the IPO model advocate division of the general group process into smaller phases, episodes, or cycles (see Chap. 2). After presenting their arguments, we will show that knowledge about the tasks involved can be particularly helpful in identifying such phases. We then present hierarchical task analysis (HTA) (e.g. Shepherd 1998) as a way of disentangling and describing sub-tasks of the defining team task and its coordination requirements. Referring back to our example of the resuscitation task described above,1 we will demonstrate a simplified HTA of this task. In the fourth section, we will argue that, for many tasks, performance should not solely be defined in terms of results or output, but in terms of process performance markers. Again, we will show how task analysis can help to define process performance markers, and we will illustrate the usefulness of performance markers in our own research. In the fifth section, we will show the usefulness of HTA for deciding which teamwork behaviours may be particularly important at a particular moment or phase in the group process. On this basis, we suggest that it is possible to develop hypotheses for predicting group performance. The chapter ends with a general conclusion.

6.2

Extensions of the General Input–Process–Output Model: Phases, Episodes, and Cycles

The well-known input–process–output (IPO) model of group performance suggests that input factors, such as group composition or the group’s environment, influence the group process (taskwork and teamwork/cooperation) and that input as well as process variables influences the group’s outcome (e.g. performance) (Hackman and Morris 1975; McGrath 1964). The generic IPO model thus distinguishes among “before the group has started working” as the input, “while the group 1 The task-focused approach to group process analysis presented here is obviously not restricted to the cardiopulmonary resuscitation task. We will nevertheless use this task to illustrate how process performance markers can be developed and how the analysis of task requirements can be helpful in relating specific behaviour to performance. Examples referring to other tasks will also be mentioned.

96

F. Tschan et al.

interacts” as the process, and “after the group is done” as the output (note: the inclusive model presented in Chap. 2 overcomes this restrictive before- vs. duringprocess design. At first glance, this model seem to imply that a researcher who is interested in group performance can first measure or even manipulate input variables (for example, group composition, member experience, etc.). He or she will then assess the process of the group (for example, by observing the group members’ behaviours) and then relate input and/or process variables (as mediators, moderators, or both) to the result, measured as the product after the group has finished working. One of the main advantages of the IPO model is indeed that it draws attention to and therefore emphasizes the group process and its relationship with productivity. Small group research has tended, and still tends, to neglect the analysis of the group process itself (McGrath and Altermatt 2001; Moreland et al. 2010; Weingart 1997). Although focusing on the group process is very important, a number of questions arise with regard to its assessment. Many studies focus on process variables in general, such as the amount of communication, planning, and reflecting. Such an approach makes the assumption, at least implicitly, that these group processes are important throughout the whole time the group works on a task, and for all aspects of the task. This is a questionable assumption even for well-circumscribed tasks. Some process aspects, such as planning, typically are important at the beginning and at specific “turning points” (Hackman and Wageman 2005; Marks et al. 2001; Waller 1999); some, such as evaluation, are important throughout, but only after some action has been carried out (Tschan 1995, 2002); some are important only for specific sub-tasks (e.g. in an air traffic control task, planes identified as foes require different observation behaviour than do planes identified as friends; Tschan et al. 2000). Assessing behaviours in terms of frequencies over the entire process may therefore in many cases not capture the important aspects and may even yield misleading results. The problems of overall process measures are even more pronounced in teams. Teams have a longer existence than the ad hoc groups often studied in group research. Multiple tasks and thus multiple processes, dynamic changes in tasks, as well as changes in input factors (e.g. in team membership, member competences, etc.) are very common for teams. Furthermore, a team may begin a new task while still continuing another one, and at the same time may terminate yet another task. Teams may thus have to coordinate between different tasks, and progress on one task may influence the work on another task. As different processes occur at the same time, it is difficult to analyse “the” process. Furthermore, as a team progresses on one task, team members may learn or change their attitudes, or members may leave or join a team, so that input factors may change as well. For teams, the boundaries of input, process, and output may be especially difficult. It is therefore not surprising that it is the domain of team research in which authors have critically discussed limitations of a general IPO model and have suggested important extensions (Antoni and Hertel 2009; Arrow et al. 2000; Ilgen et al. 2005; Marks et al. 2001; McGrath 1991). For these authors, the realities of teamwork – multiple tasks


97

and changes in input factors – are the background to the argument that it may not be easy, or even inappropriate, to study teams according to an overall input–process– output framework. Thus, many researchers have recommended approaching the overall group process with more fine-grained analyses (Arrow et al. 2000; Marks et al. 2001; McGrath 1991; Tschan 1995; Weingart 1992, 1997). Researchers who have extended the IPO models have suggested different conceptualizations of the overall group process. For example, Ilgen et al. (2005) adopted a temporal structure and distinguish several phases of the group’s increasing experience (forming, functioning, finishing). They then related core topics to each of the stages. In the forming stage, trust, planning, and structuring are primordial, whereas in the functioning stage, bonding, adapting, and learning may be core concerns. Marks et al. (2001) suggested dividing the overall group process into temporal cycles of goal-directed activities they call episodes. Episodes are “IPO-type” micro-cycles and are defined as action-feedback cycles that are preceded and followed by periods of transitions between tasks, similarly to cycles described by Tschan (1995). Finally, McGrath and Tschan (2004) distinguished three hierarchical-temporal levels related to the overall group process: (1) at the purpose or project level, where the group selects, accepts, or modifies the group’s projects; (2) at the planning level, where the group structures the process (what will be done, when, by whom and how); and (3) at the action level, where the process consists of a series of interrelated “orient–enact–monitor– modify” cycles. The cycles are related to the different goals or sub-tasks the group has to carry out. The cycle concept is similar to the concept of episodes and transitions suggested by Tschan (1995), and by Marks et al. (2001), described above. The three hierarchical levels (project, planning, and action) constitute a general temporal pattern similar to the one described by Ilgen et al. (2005). Thus, project choice and planning are more likely in the earlier stages (i.e. the forming stage), and the action level corresponds to the functioning stage. All of these refinements of the general IPO model implicitly or explicitly assume that group goals (or group tasks that are defined by goals; see below) are an important influence on the overall group process: Episodes (Marks et al. 2001) and cycles (McGrath and Tschan 2004) are both defined as related to the group’s tasks and goals; and observable episodes, transition, or cycles will depend on these goals and tasks. Based on similar considerations, the important influence of task requirements in groups for group process research has been widely acknowledged (Arrow et al. 2000; Cannon-Bowers et al. 1995; Hackman and Morris 1975; McGrath et al. 2000; Tschan and von Cranach 1996). As group tasks and goals can be very different, they may require different types of episodes or cycles. It is thus necessary to develop a good understanding of the specific goals, sub-goals, and behavioural requirements of the tasks with which groups are confronted. One of the methods used to describe tasks as structures of goals and sub-goals that are hierarchically nested and temporally related is hierarchical task analysis (Annett 2004; Shepherd 1985), which will be presented next.

98

6.3

F. Tschan et al.

Task Analysis of Team Tasks

A task analysis that describes the steps and behavioural requirements necessary to fulfil a task is very useful for a more precise analysis of the relationship between teamwork behaviour and group performance. There are many different procedures for analysing tasks (cf. Konradt et al. 2006). In our research (Gurtner et al. 2007; Tschan 1995, 2002; Tschan et al. 2000) we have used a simplified version of the hierarchical task analysis (HTA) initially developed by Annett and Shepherd (Annett 2004; Shepherd 2001). This method describes tasks in terms of executable goals and is therefore well suited as an approach to the analysis of group behaviour. HTA describes tasks as a set of steps to be carried out or goals that have to be achieved. Typically, a goal can be divided into sub-goals. HTA therefore describes tasks as a hierarchical structure containing general goals as well as sub-goals that are related to the general goals. It also specifies when a goal is attained: For each goal and sub-goal, the criteria for judging goal attainment are listed; these normally include qualifiers (e.g. time, correctness, etc.) of good goal attainment. For each goal, HTA specifies in what order (if any) sub-tasks have to be carried out as well as other conditions of goal attainment: For some tasks, a sub-goal can only be started after another has been finished (sequential requirements); for other goals, several sub-goals have to be pursued in a coordinated manner. The description of the task in terms of a structure of goals and sub-goals, the criteria of goal attainment, and the description of the conditions for sub-goals are part of a classical HTA, which is often used to analyse tasks carried out by individuals. More recently, Annett et al. (2000) extended HTA to the analysis of group tasks. In accordance with recent concepts (Bowers et al. 1997; Marks et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2005) that distinguish between taskwork (what the team does) and teamwork (how the team coordinates its actions), they assess not only the task goals and sub-goals, but also the teamwork or coordination requirements related to each goal or sub-goal. In fact, Shepherd (2001) suggested that some teamwork requirements (for example “inform person x”) can be seen as goals in themselves and can be included as separate goals in the system. The main principles of HTA are relatively simple. As tasks become complex, however, conducting full-fledged HTA can become rather difficult. To perform HTA, the analyst has to know the task well. Classical HTA thus uses observation techniques, expert interviews, and document analysis as a basis. We provide as an example a simplified version of HTA(one that does not use the elaborate notation of the original system and omits some sub-goals) for the resuscitation task. For this task, extended documentation is available, which is based on research that assessed which actions provide the highest chances of patient survival and recovery. The general guidelines for “advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation” for medical professionals are regularly updated as new research becomes available. We base the task analysis on the European resuscitation guidelines


99

(Nolan et al. 2005; von Planta 2004), adapting it to our specific research context that involves a patient simulator.2 As described in the introduction, the “patient” in the simulator suffers from a cardiac arrest in the presence of a medical professional. We programmed the mannequin to display “ventricular fibrillation”. At the beginning of a cardiac arrest, the heart often shows rapid electrical activity, which is, however, not synchronized enough to trigger a coordinated contraction of the heart muscle. Such electrical activity is called ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. If the patient is connected to a surveillance monitor displaying heart activities, ventricular fibrillation is clearly recognizable by the trained physician. If a patient has this condition, defibrillation (application of electrical countershocks with the use of two panels placed on the chest of the patient) may help to restart synchronized cardiac activity and thus restore the heartbeat. The main goals of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (see Fig. 6.1) are (1) diagnosing the cardiac arrest, (2) oxygenating the brain, and (3) attempting to reestablish spontaneous circulation. Each of the main goals can be further broken down into sub-goals. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is best carried out by a group. On the most general level, teamwork and coordination requirements can be specified as the need to establish a shared mental model of the situation and the intervention, and to assign tasks to people. The first goal, “Diagnose the cardiac arrest”, contains three sub-goals: 1-1 confirms the absence of a pulse; 1-2 confirms the absence of breathing; and 1-3 confirms the loss of consciousness. Proper diagnosis has to be established before the group can start on goals 2 and 3. Note that the guidelines for advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation (Nolan et al. 2005) allow only 10 s for the medical professional to diagnose a cardiac arrest, because it is essential to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation very quickly. Teamwork requirements for the diagnosis are that all team members have to be made aware of the diagnosis “cardiac arrest”, because this knowledge should trigger the behavioural script “resuscitation”. This script can be seen as an individually stored “shared mental model” that contains the most important aspects of the resuscitation procedure. As all medical professionals have received training in resuscitation, one can assume that the script is available. Given the high time pressure in the diagnostic phase, another important teamwork requirement is to terminate the diagnostic phase rapidly and move into the intervention phase in a coordinated fashion. The second goal (oxygenating the brain) has three sub-goals. The first sub-goal, 2-1 “open airways”, contains the sub-sub-goals “checking the mouth for foreign body” and “removing visible obstructions in the mouth” (not shown in Fig. 6.1). Sub-goal 2-2 is “ventilate” (providing oxygen to the lungs) and 2-3 “cardiac massage” (which substitutes for circulation and transports the oxygenated blood to the brain). Sub-goals 2

In our simulator setting, (1) the patient was branched on a heart surveillance monitor, which facilitates diagnosis; (2) an intravenous line was already established; (3) the patient showed ventricular fibrillation; and (4) differential diagnostics was not required, because the simulator mannequin was programmed to wake up after proper resuscitation.

Ensure that all team member know diagnosis Change rapidly from diagnosis to intervention

Coordination requirements

Inform others


Count loud Change person after 2 Minutes Assure gapless alternance

Not during cardiac massage

Alternate between 20 massages and 2 ventilations

Do before ventilating

2-3 cardiac massage 100/min 4-5 cm straight arms

2-2 ventilate

1 mg every 3-5 minutes Inform about drugs given

,,Clear” command before shock

3-2 administer epinephrine

> 200 joules

as fast as possible

3-1 defibrillate

Coordinate altneration between 2 and 3

Obstructions removed

2-1 open airways

3. Reestablish spontaneous circulation

Altemate between 2 and 3

Do until defibrillator is ready, After unsuccessful defibrillation, do for 2-3 minutes Do not interrupt except for defibrillation

2. Oxygenate the brain

Fig. 6.1 Simplified hierarchical task analysis for the cardiopulmonary resuscitation task, including coordination requirements

Do in either sequence

Specification

Criteria for goal attainment

1-3 check ,,brain”

Do before 2 or 3

Specification

1-2 check breathing

Use no more than 10 seconds

Criteria for goal attainment

1-1 check pulse

1. Diagnose the cardiac arrest

Sub-goals

Resuscitate the patient Distribute tasks Establish, maintain and update shared mental model

Goals


Task

100 F. Tschan et al.


101

2 and 3 are closely linked. The guidelines specify an alternate sequence of 30 chest compressions followed by two ventilations. The guidelines also specify criteria for good goal attainment: Cardiac massage has to be done at a rhythm of about 100 beats per minute and at a depth of about 4–5 cm. For patients who are not intubated,3 cardiac massage and manual ventilation should not be done at the same time, but rather in an alternating but gapless sequence, which results in the coordination requirement to alternate between the person performing chest compressions and the person who ventilates. This coordination can be achieved better if the person performing cardiac massage signals when he or she has finished the 30 compressions; the recommendation is thus to count each compression out loud.4 Sub-goal 3 (reestablishing spontaneous circulation) has two sub-goals: 3-1 defibrillation (applying electrical countershocks to convert the ventricular fibrillation to a regular heartbeat) and 3-2 administering epinephrine (adrenaline), a drug that constricts the vessels and increases pressure and can thus improve the effectiveness of defibrillation and cardiac massage. Coordination requirements for defibrillation are important, as during defibrillation all helpers should stay away from the patient or the bed, because the electric shock applied could harm bystanders. Thus, before defibrillation, a “clear” command should be given to ensure that none of the helpers touches the patient or bed. Administering epinephrine entails the coordination requirement of informing the group when the drug is given to update the group members’ mental model. The resuscitation guidelines also specify the temporal sequences and conditions to change from goal 2 (oxygenating the brain) to goal 3 (reestablishing spontaneous circulation): first, goal 2 has to be pursued until the defibrillator is ready; after unsuccessful defibrillation, 2 min of ventilation–cardiac massage cycles should be performed and epinephrine should be administered before the next defibrillation. Coordination requirements involve ensuring that the group keeps track of time and changes in a coordinated way between goals 2 and 3. Again, note that we have presented a simplified version here; many more specifications for this task are given in the guidelines. Task analysis can be performed on different levels of specificity (from only a few general goals to a very elaborate system of goals and sub-goals), and it can be done for very different types of tasks. The resuscitation example describes a team task that usually lasts less than 30 min, but HTA is also suitable for broader and more complex activities. For example, Shepherd (2001, p. 124ff) provides an analysis of the main nursing tasks in a hospital ward, as well as several examples of management tasks (p. 126ff). Thus, HTA is not restricted to “hands-on tasks” but can also be used for the analysis of more cognitive team tasks, such as decision making or problem solving. In the next section, we show how the results of HTA can be helpful in developing process performance measures.

3

Placement of a tube to allow artificial ventilation of a patient. For advanced life support, intubation (introducing a tube into the trachea of the patient to facilitate ventilation) is suggested as a more efficient way to ventilate the patient. If this is done, cardiac massage and ventilation no longer need to be alternated. 4

102

6.4

F. Tschan et al.

Assessing Process Performance Measures Based on Task Analysis

The general IPO model of group performance can lead to the assumption that group performance is best measured as the result available once the group has finished its work. Conceptualizations of work performance differentiate, however, between outcome and process (behavioural) aspects of performance (Sonnentag and Frese 2002) and see performance as a multidimensional construct (Campbell et al. 1993). Output aspects of performance are measures of performance effectiveness (how well or to what degree a goal is attained), whereas process aspects of performance can be related to efficiency measures of performance, where the output is related to the resources needed to achieve them (Pritchard and Watson 1992). For many tasks, outcome performance is not the only, or the most important, aspect of task performance. For example, although the outcome can be that a crew landed a plane safely, crew performance also requires that the pilots descend smoothly on the correct area of the tarmac and perform the correct tasks in the right sequence during the landing approach. Although patient well-being and recovery are crucial outcome measures for judging the quality of surgery, it is also important that during surgery the right procedures are chosen and performed in a timely manner. Process measures of performance are also important because the relationship between process and performance is often less than perfect (Boos 1996), and many aspects apart from process parameters may be important for an outcome. If this imperfect association between process performance and outcome performance is neglected, a positive outcome may erroneously be taken as “proof” that a person, or a team, has acted perfectly. The necessity to distinguish between process performance measures and outcome measures can be illustrated very well by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation task. One could be tempted to measure resuscitation performance as the outcome “patient survival”, as the main goal is to save the patient’s life. However, it would be erroneous to assume that if the patient survives, group performance was optimal and, if the patient dies, group performance was bad. Survival of a cardiac arrest depends on many factors other than the performance of the resuscitation team. An analysis of patient survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest has shown that physiological (the underlying problem) and demographic (e.g. age) aspects of patients are much more important predictors of cardiac arrest survival than the timeliness of starting the resuscitation or group skills (Cooper and Cade 1997). Although coordination quality does significantly contribute to the outcome, there is a substantial chance that a patient will die, even if the team does everything “right”. In this and many similar cases, relying solely on output performance will not lead to the most valid assessment of group performance. Group performance, be it process or outcomes measures, is particular to each task, and generalizations across tasks are normally not appropriate (Mathieu et al. 2008). One has thus to develop and define performance measures separately for each task. Task analysis can be very useful here, because it already specifies the


103

Table 6.1 Example of process performance measures for the resuscitation task Goal Process performance measure Possible operationalization Time until diagnosis is called Coding time between onset of The diagnosis “cardiac cardiac arrest and a person arrest” should be done calling it a cardiac arrest rapidly (goal 1) Time until the first meaningful Coding of time from cardiac Resuscitation should be intervention is started arrest until any one of the started as soon as possible following actions: chest (transition goal 1 to goals compression; ventilation; 2 and 3) defibrillation There should be continuous, Time until ventilation-cardiac Coding time between onset of uninterrupted massage starts cardiac arrest and first oxygenation of the brain ventilation or cardiac (goal 2) massage Cont. goal 2 Percentage of “hands-on” time Second-by-second coding of (uninterrupted ventilation/ hands-on time (yes-no); cardiac massage), of total calculating the percentage of time, excluding the hands-on time in whole episodes during which process hands-on is not suitable (during defibrillation) Cont. goal 2 Unnecessary interruptions of Assessing all interruptions of behaviour longer than 5 s, ventilation and cardiac code if necessary or not massage Dummy-code: yes, if a group Visual control of mount and Remove potential member controls mouth remove of potential airway obstructions in airways visually or with fingers obstructions (2-1) No overlapping ventilation – Behaviour coding – instances Appropriate ventilationcardiac massage cardiac massage and cardiac massage cycles ventilation overlap (recoded) (2-2 and 2-3) Cont. goal 2-2/2-3 30:2 cycles Overall behaviour rating (yes/ partially/no) Behaviour coding, rating Technical aspects of cardiac Chest compression rate of massage (2-3) 100 p min Depth Arm position Attempt to establish heartbeat (3) Time elapsed until first Time between cardiac arrest and Defibrillate as soon as defibrillation first defibrillation defibrillator is available (3-1) General rating Number of alternations Alternate between Time of ventilation-cardiac defibrillations and massage between oxygenating the brain defibrillations Use correct defibrillation More than 200 joules Note all defibrillations with strength correct strength; calculate percentage of correct defibrillations (behavioural observation) Administer epinephrine Correct dosage Dummy coding, based on communication Note: In our scenarios, the defibrillator is always at the same place; otherwise, the time needed to transport the defibrillator would have to be subtracted

104

F. Tschan et al.

criteria for good goal and sub-goal attainment, which often allows process performance measures to be derived.

6.4.1

Developing Process Performance Measures for the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Task

We will illustrate process performance measures for the resuscitation task (see Table 6.1) used in our research (Hunziker et al. 2009; L€uscher et al. submitted; Marsch et al. 2004a, 2005; Tschan et al. 2006; Vetterli 2006). In the table we refer to the goal or sub-goal of the task analysis in the left column, specify the process performance measure in the middle column, and provide a short description of the operationalization in the right column. Note that all the process performance measures presented here can be based on the observation of the overt behaviour of group members or communication between them, permitting performance assessment based on video recordings. Our experience has shown that high interrater reliability can be achieved for those codings (kappas between 0.75 and 1), although only after extensive training of the coders. The coders – particularly those who are not medical professionals – first take an online class on cardiopulmonary resuscitation to familiarize themselves with the guidelines and the research behind them to understand the basic resuscitation task. They are then trained on sample tapes based on a coding manual. Typically, a 10- to 15-h investment is necessary until satisfactory reliability of process performance coding is achieved. For time-based codings, good interrater reliability is easier; the other behavioural ratings need more extensive training. Assessing several measures of process performance raises the question of how to use them. Principally, they could be used separately (and some of them may be omitted depending on the research purpose), or they might be combined into more general indicators or a single performance measure. We mentioned above that theories of performance often regard performance as multidimensional (Pritchard and Watson 1992; Sonnentag and Frese 2002). To the extent that this is true, the different indicators may represent rather different aspects of performance, and a single measure might miss important aspects. We tested the hypothesis that the process performance markers are not simply different measures of a single overall performance, but represent distinct aspects. We coded four process performance measures in 29 groups of physicians and nurses confronted with a cardiac arrest that developed suddenly during a routine situation (Vetterli et al. 2009). Process performance markers coded in this study were (1) the time elapsed until the first meaningful intervention (transition from goal 1 to goals 2 and 3; see Fig. 6.1); (2) the percentage of hands-on time (goal 2); (3) the time until the first defibrillation (goal 3); and (4) the time until the first resuscitation cycle (goals 1 to 3), including administration of epinephrine, was completed. Table 6.2 shows the intercorrelation between these different process performance measures. Note that we recoded the time measures so that all measures now reflect a higher performance.


105

Table 6.2 Intercorrelations of four process performance measures for the resuscitation task 1 2 3 1. (reversed) Time until first intervention – 2. (reversed) Time until first defibrillation 0.393* – 3. (reversed) Time to complete goals 1–3 0.274 0.603** – 4. Percentage of hands-on time 0.275 0.158 0.020 Note: N ¼ 29 groups *p

Coordination in Human and Primate Groups

Human Blood Groups

Primate Politics

Primate cognition

Primate Politics

Primate Communities

Coordination Models and Languages - COORDINATION 2011

Primate Psychology

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Transition Metal Groups 7 and 7

Hominid culture in primate perspective

Coordination in Syntax

Primate Neuroethology

Primate Neuroethology

Primate Psychology

The Primate Malarias

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Transition Metal Groups 9 - 11

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Transition Metal Groups 3 - 5

Galois groups and fundamental groups

Reflection groups and Coxeter groups

Galois groups and fundamental groups

Coordination Models and Languages, 9 conf., COORDINATION 2007

Handbook of Primate Husbandry and Welfare

Coordination games

Lie groups and compact groups

Galois groups and fundamental groups

Lie groups and compact groups

Lie Groups and Algebraic Groups

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Bio-coordination Chemistry

Primate anti-predator strategies (Developments in Primatology)

Multisensory Object Perception in the Primate Brain

Coordination in Human and Primate Groups

Human Blood Groups

Primate Politics

Primate cognition

Primate Politics

Primate Communities

Coordination Models and Languages - COORDINATION 2011

Primate Psychology

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Transition Metal Groups 7 and 7

Hominid culture in primate perspective

Coordination in Syntax

Primate Neuroethology

Primate Neuroethology

Primate Psychology

The Primate Malarias

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Transition Metal Groups 9 - 11

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Transition Metal Groups 3 - 5

Galois groups and fundamental groups

Reflection groups and Coxeter groups

Galois groups and fundamental groups

Coordination Models and Languages, 9 conf., COORDINATION 2007

Handbook of Primate Husbandry and Welfare

Coordination games

Lie groups and compact groups

Galois groups and fundamental groups

Lie groups and compact groups

Lie Groups and Algebraic Groups

Comprehensive Coordination Chemistry II. Bio-coordination Chemistry

Primate anti-predator strategies (Developments in Primatology)

Multisensory Object Perception in the Primate Brain

Recommend Documents